Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 20

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) 05:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woli Arole

Woli Arole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article may be an attempted promotion and it appears to be too soon for an article on this comedian. The article currently has six sources but all are either brief media introductions or short interviews that do little more than indicate his existence in the Nigerian comedy scene. An Internet search reveals a few more of the same, but he has not received the reliable and significant coverage that is necessary under the notability rules for media personalities. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: I'll try to be neutral here. I don't think media coverage tends to be promotional here. Pulse Nigeria and PN News Nigeria are independent media sources. WP:TOOSOON may apply however. Lunar Clock (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Voicing Lunar Clock, + he satisfies at least criterion #1 & #2 under WP:ENT. Furthermore I can obseve an abundant use of RS in the article & even per WP:THREE he qualifies.Celestina007 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from Nominator - I won't bludgeon the process, but the voters above have missed an important point. The sources mentioning Mr. Arole, including those already in the article, may very well be reliable sources in themselves. However, they have all mentioned him in very brief and introductory ways, pretty much simply announcing that he exists with no further in-depth analysis of anything he may have accomplished. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520 I don’t even know why I bother with this AFD as I’m not even the author of the article but in the spirit of fairness imho he does qualify. Can you not see how subject of article qualifies for inclusion under #1 & #2 of WP:ENT ??Celestina007 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think you should bother with it then don't. I have also already made my argument and will let the community discussion take its course because I don't have to look at this man's article ever again. But since people are pinging me and demanding more comments, my argument is that his coverage is trivial even though it may well be in reliable sources. See WP:GNG, which says a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", while "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He passes general notability guidelines. He also starred in a movie which was #5 in the Nigerian charts. Sources include:

• "Nigerian comedians Woli Arole and Asiri bestow 'blessings' on BBC" from BBC (In article)
• "Before Stardom With… Woli Arole" from The Punch (in article)
• "Woli Arole, Frank Donga, Kelvin Ikeduba attend 'The Call' premiere" from The Pulse
• "Online comedians should stick to their niche —Woli Arole" from The Pulse
• "Review: Woli Arole takes on Nollywood with ‘The Call’; He doesn’t succeed" from YNaija
• "How I found fame on Instagram – Comedian, Woli Arole" from Premium Times
• "Many Of My Prophesies Are Real – Woli Arole" from Independent
• "I was told my movie would flop, says Wole Arole" from The Nation
• "No rivalry between Woli Arole and me –Woli Agba" from The Punch

...and many more. Missvain (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Missvain. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Misvain. Some of the sources cited here appears to be independent of the subject.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:20, 26 January 2020 (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) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Tiesenga

Frederick Tiesenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable, and promotional. He does not meet WP:PROF--his most cited paper has only 29 references, and his other publications are cited by fewer than 10 papers. His books are self-published, and not even in WorldCat. He is president of only local specialized societies.

This is obviously intended to advertise his practice, his books, and his speaking engagements. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our guidelines for articles on academics and researchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Did not pass my source check - fails GNG. This article was conveniently created after he announced he was running for local office. So, fails politician guidelines, too. Missvain (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacking WP:RS. Fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Advertising content can be re-written. The fact that he won Kenneth J. Douglas Award for Excellence should be considered to establish notability. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL, WP:TNT, WP:PROF, and WP:NPOL. Locally-known medical doctor who ran once for local office. Much of the bio is entirely unsourced. A major re-write would be needed even if there were significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject fails all the notability standards already brought up. I also cannot seem to find any independent coverage indicating that the Kenneth J. Douglas Award for Excellence is significant enough to indicate any sort of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Memories (Disney)

Musical Memories (Disney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There have been no sources listed on this page for a considerable time. My online search cannot find any sources that would suggest notability under WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's comments. I could not find much in terms of coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but the title is rather generic so that makes it a little more difficult. Aoba47 (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, notability not established. Mujinga (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a bunch of figurines. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromodulation in epilepsy: TMS-EEG, DBS, repetitive TMS, cortical electrical stimulation: open and closed loop

Neuromodulation in epilepsy: TMS-EEG, DBS, repetitive TMS, cortical electrical stimulation: open and closed loop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent essay with possible WP:SYNTH issues. There may be something to work with here, but it would likely need a WP:TNT treatment to get it from a research paper style to an encyclopedic article. If I'm wrong and this sort of essay-like article is acceptable under guidelines, I will withdraw this nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Wikipedia is not for publishing your essays. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 20 Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or draftify We could have a page on neurostimulation treatment of epilepsy but this page wanders well off the topic, so, yes a TNT would be required. This could go back to draft if the writer wants to make a better attempt at an encyclopedic topic. Otherwise this is something for Wikiversity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. Allow recreation to see if anyone else can come up with a better title and article. Anatoliatheo (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Wikipedia has never published original research, and by 2020, everybody knows that. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2020 (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) 21:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel da Silva

Samuel da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possibly could have been a speedy deletion, but as it went through the AfC process, decided on a full AfD. Cannot find anything in the sources here or online to merit an article. Edwardx (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. I'm surprised it passed through AfC. A quick search doesn't bring up much. Plus, the content looks more like a CV. Lunar Clock (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, I'm also surprised this made the cut. Fails my efforts at establishing general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I guess AfC does not keep out all the rubbish articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - (Beware of other people of the same name when searching.) This article is clearly an attempt at promotion, and not a very good one at that. Full of non-notable personal trivia that even fans would find unnecessary. When I was a kid I lived with my mom too, but that doesn't mean I need to say it in an encyclopedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MILL, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:SPAM. This page is such a mess that it can't be turned into a real article. This is very clearly an ordinary model at the start of their career. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; a few spreads is not enough. In 2020, everybody knows what a resume is and spam is; I can not longer assume good faith. Bearian (talk)

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 as a copyright violation. @Sambhil32:: it's fine to tag an article for speedy deletion if it's already listed at AfD. Hut 8.5 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhortal

Bhortal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable, doesn't seem to have the potential to evolve into a good article Hyxl4161 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2020 (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/2020 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too new. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has been nominated for CSD G12 for copyright violation. I do not know if two different deletion tags can be placed on the same article! Sambhil32 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2020 (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. Keeping based on improvements and the potential for further improvement. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wha'll be King but Charlie?

Wha'll be King but Charlie? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem notable. Even if it is, the page belongs on wikit or another sister project, as it is almost exclusively a lyrics page. Hydromania (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This song may be notable, but the creators of the article haven't explained what it's about except by allusion. The song, which is in Scots rather than English, needs to be put in context by the article to make sense to most readers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was once an extremely popular dance tune. It is widely included in anthologies visible in a google books search and in searches of old newspapers. Even a quick search reveals that it continues to be played in folk dancing and folk music circles.IceFishing (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While there were no music charts at the time this was popular, this certainly would have made the cut. And for two centuries. A good example of enduring notability. Metropolitan90 makes a good point, the article should be saved and lyrics pruned and replaced with some contextualization. Let me see what I can do. Ifnord (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can see that there have already been some improvements to the article. One thing that needs to be addressed is when the song was written. From what I can find, Lady Nairne didn't start writing songs until after Charles Edward Stuart was dead, which means that the song was not about a contemporary issue but was more a retrospective on the past. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. I see there's plenty more sources online that can be found with two clicks at Google books and Scholar. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there is a source to cite, the relevant info could be added to the club article and this title re-created as a redirect. RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperfiel

Cooperfiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks notability and verification. Pointless having an article about an abandoned project. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sport Club Corinthians Paulista#Stadiums and mention there. GiantSnowman 19:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect - Good suggestion by Giant for redirect if a source exists for citation. Missvain (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: I don't speak Portuguese but it's mentioned here. GiantSnowman 20:14, 21 January 2020 (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. From the descriptions in the articles, it does seem that this is a separate winery from Freixenet, just with common owners, so not redirecting at this time. If that information is inaccurate (hard to say without sources) and this is a subsidiary or brand of Freixenet, then a redirect could be created, but the sourced information should be in the target article first. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vionta

Vionta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – I write about wine and just a few passing mentions at this point and primarily press releases/promo content is all I could find. Please consider redirecting to the company that owns them - Freixenet. Missvain (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Freixenet per Missvain's suggestion. Really nothing to merge at this time. Ifnord (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SNOW. A redirect might confuse our readers because they're two very different wines made by the same company. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Music (website)

Persian Music (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

article is non notable Hyxl4161 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2020 (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/2020 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete g5. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2020 (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) 08:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Bayne

Jordan Bayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Only mere mentions and non-significant roles. Even Newspapers.com came up with just passing mentions. Missvain (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Not an overly notable actress, but taking into account her work directing/writing/producing short films, I think there is enough to sustain an article. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2020 (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 PNS Mehran attack. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Yasir Abbas

Syed Yasir Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notable for only a single event per WP:BIO1E. See PNS Mehran attack. Störm (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to PNS Mehran attack. The subject does not pass general notability guidelines. Now, perhaps they do in non-English sources - I'm happy to reconsider if so. Missvain (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested: a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talene Monahon

Talene Monahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. Unable to locate significant biographical details in secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are reviews of her play How To Load A Musket, with only short biographies of this person. Some sources cited don't even mention here. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All of the cited sources do mention her, and enable reliable sourcing of her childhood, education, and acting career. There are reviews of her acting that can be added. However, the reason why I created this article is her play How to Load a Musket which I believe passes WP:AUTHOR. 3. "The person has created... (a work that) ha(s) been the primary subject... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."IceFishing (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only review I found in a notable publication was this one in The New York Times. If there were others I will withdraw my AfD. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Out (magazine), New York Edition, published a signed review, which is certainly significant. History News Network is where professional historians review books, films, plays about history. I just added reviews of a performance of here in a revival of a George Bernard Shaw play by Terry Teachout in the Wall Street Journal and by a reviewer for the New York Times. More such review can be added. She has been performing on New York stages and reviews of her performances are easy to find in the New York papers.User:Magnolia677, is this sufficient, or would you like me to add reviews of more of her stage appearances? There have been many. This was, however, as far as I know, the first play that she has written. IceFishing (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (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) 20:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Yousuf

Muhammad Yousuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Störm (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. MathSciNet lists 17 publications for him, and checking the same titles in Google Scholar found citation counts of 64, 61, 33, 26, 18, ... for an h-index of 8. Mathematics in general is a low-citation field but numerical PDEs (his area) isn't, and this isn't enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. In any case, most of the article is unsourced content about his administrative work, which as department chair is too low-level for WP:PROF#C6 (that's for heads of entire universities). I tried searching for better sources but it's made difficult by the commonness of his name and I didn't find much. In particular the in-depth sources at [1], [2], and [3] appear to be about three different other people. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass general notability guidelines. Also, good research by David Eppstein. Missvain (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is in the article doesn't demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find much more about him beyond his PhD thesis. He doesn't appear to be at Hazara U any more. That he has a common name that he has transliterated in several different ways definitely makes it more difficult to search for him. Comment that I suspect the Google Scholar profile found by David Eppstein to also be the wrong Muhammed Yousuf, as the subject of this article works in the history of math (rather than in numerical pdes). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even if a professor has had a lot of citations, which I do not concede, but we can't find any reliable sources, then an article can't be created. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (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 and redirect to Werecat. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weretiger

Weretiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article currently discusses a Dungeons & Dragons creature with no significant coverage in non-primary sources. However, "weretiger" is also an Asian mythological creature, which is discussed at the werecat article. Were-Tiger currently redirects to there, so if this article gets deleted, it should be also redirected there. Not a very active user (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this should be merged to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters instead of Werecat, where weretigers are actually discussed? Not a very active user (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect to werecat, per nom. The D&D version is not notable, with no reliable, secondary sources discussing it in any meaningful manner. The actual mythological version is notable, and has an appropriate article to redirect this to. Looking at the article history, it would appear that this was actually initially created as a redirect to the notable mythological topic, before being hijacked and re-purposed by anonymous IP editors to be about this non-notable fictional variant, and constantly edit-warred by more IP editors whenever someone attempted to restore it to its actual useful purpose. So, this non-notable D&D cruft should be deleted, to prevent any more IP reverts, and then the redirect to werecat should be recreated. Rorshacma (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect per nom. Against policy WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Redirect per nom. Non-notable article, but plausible search term in a general sense._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). BD2412 T 04:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - AFD is not a vote. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Werecat. Article is sourced entirely to primary sources, and should be deleted before redirecting to prevent possible recreation as has happened in this article and others. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems like not all the sources presented as proof of notability have been rebutted, although it's a weakish "keep" conclusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CECPQ2

CECPQ2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally nominated for PROD with the justification There doesn't appear to be any coverage in independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG, possibly just WP:TOOSOON. The initial editor removed PROD and provided two additional sources, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a lot of coverage but what there is indicates that this is independently notable and likely to become more important as part of an important research field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The nomination says: two additional sources were added, but neither of them has significant coverage of the subject (in fact, neither of them even directly refer to it by name).. Well when I check out one of those sources [4] I see CECPQ2 thoroughly discussed during it. Now the chance of me using remembering SSL is Secure Sockets Layer is minimal but just possible; remembering TLS is Transport Layer Security; or even the difference between them is minimal and I'd probably simply say TLS/SSL if I needed write something down about it. My chance of remembering CECPQ2 is Combined Elliptic-Curve and Post-Quantum 2 and quite frankly to mention the latter in most places might to some I might know might turn the sir blue. The key point is the nomination has in my view falsely scummered the document and misled the AfD by claiming the document did not discuss the subject; which it clearly does. The nomination did not even discuss any thoughts of merging to CECPQ1 ... and I would oppose that at this stage .... maybe an expert might do it later. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Djm-leighpark, the source you linked above is one of the ones that was originally in the article before I nominated for PROD; the issue with that source is that it is not independent, as it is written by one of the researchers involved in developing CECPQ2. The two sources that were added post-PROD were [5] and [6]. Maybe there's something in there that I wasn't able to understand, but I would be amazed if you can find evidence that they discuss the subject in detail there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well having had a look at [7] again carefully I'd have to agree with you on Langley. The wonder of imprecise citations being made a little better slipping me up. Apolgoies and thanks for setting that out. There's better than that on Scholar and to some extent its the sheer waste of my trawling through the lot ... and the issue of no consideration of the merge remains in all events. Some like [8] (P.18) would be better choice to stand up. [9] and ([10]) are better choices. Therefore I remain keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krishan Hooda

Krishan Hooda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As a director has directed one film Rebellious Flower rest are all short films. None of the awards received are notable. What ever coverage is for Rebellious Flower. Cant seem to find any in-depth coverage. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The film is notable but the director is not. Notability can not be inherited. It seems the page was created for promoting this person. Sambhil32 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Binish Desai

Binish Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Person fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Just trivial mentions and nothing indepth and significant. I removed too promotional stuffs from here. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This person seems to be on the cusp of notability, and the article has many sources- which don't really hold up to scrutiny. Ignoring what seem to be some low level promotion websites, the other citations are ted talks, the times of India parroting those Ted talks, and bad sources like the Deccan Herald, which has copied from us before. The forbes reference, which appeared promising, is just a few sentences, and the Chicago Tribune article is by a community contributor. If there were 3 or so more articles like the forbes one, I might keep, but those sources are not there. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 03:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. He's another "30 under 30" activist. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2020 (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 Woody Woodpecker (film series). Wanted to give this another 24 hours to get some more feedback. I think redirecting is the best - thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dapper Denver Dooley

Dapper Denver Dooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable cartoon character. Article is currently unsourced and I can't find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Woody Woodpecker is a good soft delete and redirect target. Hog Farm (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Merge into a "Characters" section in Woody Woodpecker (film series)? Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or smerge to Woody Woodpecker (film series) sounds fine. All there really is to say is that he was an antagonist; his individual appearances are already borderline cruft. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per toughpigs as this subject is not too far from becoming notable now. NHS2008 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Redirect or merge - I'm willing to give the article a chance, since Dapper Denver Dooley appeared in a number of Woody Woodpecker cartoons (and a Chilly Willy cartoon), but would also be Ok with a merge too. I think the only WW rivals most people really know are Wally Walrus and Buzz Buzzard (maybe Gabby Gator}. Also, Woody's main cartoons known to people were from 1940-1955, late 1959-1962 and the last one released in theaters. DDD cartoons appearances were in a not-to-notable period.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Woody Woodpecker (film series). The article fails WP:GNG, the only sourced website being nothing more than a listing of episodes. There is nothing in the article worth merging. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Woody Woodpecker (film series). Not notable. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greyday Productions

Greyday Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe that WP:NORG would be the appropriate criteria, rather than WP:NMG for the label, because it's a company/organization rather than a label or a musician and it appears that this label does not satisfy the notability for organizations. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bands and musical ensembles are companies/organizations as well, but we recognize WP:MUSIC - exclusively - as the criterion for judging their notability over WP:CORP, and I have long argued that record labels should be treated the same. WP:MUSIC provides the only language in any notability guideline specifically addressing record labels, and Greyday meets its suggestion of "one of the more important indie labels". Chubbles (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment see here. WP:NCORP still appears to be the relevant criteria. Graywalls (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's from eight years ago, and there were several subsequent discussions, some of which I started. At one point we were close to having actual enumerated criteria at NMUSIC, but the conversation got bogged down on a rather trivial technicality, and I abandoned the project - to my chagrin, as this keeps coming up at AfD over and over and over. In any case, none of this suggests we should ignore NMUSIC, and certainly, people who are interested in music are, in general, going to be better judges of what musical content to include than people who are interested in corporations and organizations. Chubbles (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles:, BMG, Warner, Sony Music, etc are not "bands", they're organizations/corporations. Where are you finding any Wikipedia guidelines references indicating that recording companies should be evaluated under the same categories as bands? Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that recording companies are bands. I'm merely pointing out that bands and ensembles unquestionably would fall under WP:CORP as "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose", but we (rightfully) never (ever! in my entire time here) use that yardstick to decide their notability. Chubbles (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL. Most of the bands on this label are red links. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I'm not sure I follow. There are also numerous bands that have articles. I might have concerns that the articles that exist are part of a walled garden, but just because several artists on a label are not notable (or not created yet) doesn't mean the label is not notable (my example would be Falcon Records (Texas)). If a label has had significant impact on the careers of, say, seven notable artists, that is an indication of notability even if ten other artists on their roster never achieved a career trajectory that results in a blue link. I have NOT made up my mind that this is a notable record label, but the number of blue links seem to discount WP:MILL. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:51, 28 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of original (pre-war) Martin D-45s

List of original (pre-war) Martin D-45s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN. These aren't Stradivariuses. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They are the acoustic guitar world's equivalent of Stradivariuses. Read the Lead: "generally recognized to the most desired, and highly valued, acoustic guitars ever made; in "American Guitars - An Illustrated History", author Tom Wheeler describes them as "among American guitar's irreplaceable treasures"". They are known as the "Holy Grail" to acoustic guitar collectors. Also read here: Vintage Guitar Magazine: Classic Instruments: 1939 Martin D-45. This finishes with the sentence: "If there is any one flat-top steel-string vintage American guitar which can be viewed as a “holy grail” to collectors, the pre-World War II D-45 Martin is it." Just a note, you can buy an "ordinary" acoustic guitar for $450. One of these in top condition will cost you closer to $450,000. There are no production acoustic guitars (vintage, desirable) (other than one-offs with celebrity association) that are worth more.Tony 1212 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. There is a Martin D-45 article for that sort of stuff. It's the listing of each guitar I object to. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to above statement. Thanks for the response Clarityfiend... the Martin D-45 is a production model today that you can buy off the shelf, and has been made in a number of variants since its re-introduction in 1968. The 91 pre-war ones are a special set in my opinion and that of most other interested parties. Of course this list could be incorporated into the genral D-45 page but my view is that it is rather different in slant and would also make that page a bit long...

I refer to the WP notability criteria linked above:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines.

Some quotes from "independent reliable sources" showing that they are typically discussed as a set:

• https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/20677-pre-war-perfection-the-martin-d-45 : "Today, more than 80 years after Autry’s D-45 was built, these 91 guitars are coveted by players and collectors worldwide."
• Martin D-45 Master List (2009): "A place to list and help identify the first 91 D-45's"
• https://www.guitarplayer.com/miscellaneous/introducing-the-d-45-authentic-1942-from-martin : "The new D 45 Authentic is made exactly like Martin made the original 91 pre war D 45 Dreadnoughts. And like the originals, these new D 45 Authentics could well become the next "Holy Grails" of acoustic guitardom. These are magnificent."
• https://umgf.com/the-91-pre-war-d-45s-t180739.html : The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum > Guitars > The Vintage Corner > The 91 Pre War D-45s
• https://shop.gryphonstrings.com/products/1941-steel-string-acoustic-martin-guitar-d45-53459 : "Thanks to Blom's recent neck reset and refret it's highly playable with medium gauge strings and delivers the powerful sound and rich bass response that has made pre-WWII D-45s legendary."

This is a selection of web sources to hand. There will be more in print sources (guitar books etc.) as well.

Happy to debate further of course. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as explained above, these are like Stradivariuses of the guitar world. Not quite literally, but certainly enough to pass WP:LISTN. Adding on, from Fretboard Journal (in the December 2013 issue article Catch of the Day: 1941 Martin D-45) (emphasis added): “As most guitar geeks know, Martin only made 91 prewar D-45s, which makes this instrument a very rare bird, indeed.” This is an assertion in a notable publication that the exact number of prewar D-45s is well known among guitar enthusiasts! This is a rare and well known historical set of acoustic instruments, this page list certainly has encyclopedic value as it details that set. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally concur with User:Shelbystripes. Here is another quote, this time from a respected reference book: "History of the American Guitar: 1833 to the Present Day" by Tony Bacon (ISBN 1476856389, 9781476856384): "Only 91 pre-war D-45s were made, and in the view of many players and collectors they are among the highest quality, best sounding guitars ever made. With so few in existence and with such wide knowledge of their almost magical quality, these superb, rare, and inevitably expensive instruments appear to follow the rules of supply and demand perfectly." Regards Tony 1212 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for this very rare and valuable instrument. It is sought after by collectors. Per WP:LISTN we keep list like this.Wm335td (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (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. Appears to fail GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jy Ding

Jy Ding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Outside of a few forum posts, the non-RS Eye of Chan, only the obituary from the Honolulu Advertiser has any significant coverage on the subject. Not enough for WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for educating me. I don't understand your rules so I will wait for a verdict. There is no money involved in the making of this page; nor, that I'm aware, in the presence of it. Brofitable (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a discussion on Wikimedia Commons about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JyDinHsuYun2in.jpg , I have removed that image from Jy Ding. The discussion resulted in a Wikipedia editor finding another resource online:

https://kknews.cc/fo/l8yl32e.html

I have added this in the citations because it shows, or purports to show "In 1947, the old monk Xuyun and Master Zhiding took a group photo in front of the Guangzhou Zoulu Mansion" and so this is evidence of a close relationship between the two figures.

I was unsure what MarkH₂₁ meant by 'coverage on this subject' but perhaps this second source is enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brofitable (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also added a citation: https://www.yelp.com/biz/hsu-yun-temple-honolulu - I didn't see much point in adding this page to the wayback machine. Older copies of this page on the internet archive just load a reCAPTCHA. Brofitable (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to address, improve, resolve the following pages in this order Jy Ding > Chuan zhi > Koro Kaisan Miles > Michael Pockley as the way one is resolved may affect the next. Brofitable (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – it doesn't appear that the article subject meets WP:GNG or any other part of our notability guideline. – Levivich 17:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added per discussion of articles for deletion / Hsu Yun Temple Zenothing (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Does not appear to be notable. -Zanhe (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of new sources found. One of them inspires an edit which may be sensitive. Posting the candidate edit here, instead of on the article's talks page, for debate:

While notable for its innovative approach, the level of Jy Ding's legacy order's impact thus far may be a matter for further research. There are two institutions under the name "Zen Buddhist Order of Hsu Yun" ^[1][2][3], although there is some indication that duplication should not be presumed to mean there is any dispute as to which of these is the rightful holder of that name^[4].

Zenothing (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I understand how dharma names are given in this lineage, and have access to the relevant tonsure poem, I was able to conduct a better web search here, for Chuan zhi, and for Hsu Yun Temple. Several new citations added to each.Zenothing (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just in case it is not evident to other editors coming here, Zenothing is the same editor as Brofitable (via an appropriate user rename). — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:MILL. "Close relationship" and "student of" does not cut it anymore. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2020 (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 Wendy and Marvin. If the merged article deserves a rename, that can be handled in the usual way. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Dog (Super Friends)

Wonder Dog (Super Friends) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This fails to establish notability. The editor who removed the PROD cited two sources. I can seem to only access one of them, but "Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia" is a trivial mention that calls the character "Scooby Doo-ish" and nothing else relevant. I'm doubtful that the character has anything more than passing mentions related to the show from what I can see. TTN (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect - He could possibly be merged to Wendy and Marvin if people think that article looks salvageable (taking a quick glance at it shows it has similar sourcing problems, but I haven't done a in-depth look as its not the article under nomination). If not, it should probably be Redirected to the main Super Friends article, where he is already mentioned. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - Even with the newly added sources, I still don't see this meeting the threshold for an independent article. Most of the added references are either complete plot summary (the "Back Issue!" source is literally just a long, straight recap of an issue of a comic he appeared in) or very brief coverage (the "Saturday Morning Fever" book only mentions him in a couple of sentences, and mostly just to describe what he was). I still think that merging to one of the broader articles is the better option here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the way it is? If anything it just needs updated. Wonder Dog has been in a lot of other things since this was last updated. Why delete it? That makes no sense. --Noah Tall (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It currently fails WP:GNG. It needs real world information from reliable sources. The one source added to the article seems to be trivial coverage and the others are primary. TTN (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the statement above that this simply needs to be updated, not deleted. The article includes reliable sources now and there are others available that could be added... — Hunter Kahn 12:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've added some sources so far, and there's another that I'm going to add -- The Ultimate Super Friends Companion, vol 1: The 1970s -- which I'll be able to get my hands on in a couple days. -- Toughpigs (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it's possible to Merge this with Wendy and Marvin, and rename to Wendy, Marvin and Wonder Dog. It would probably make a stronger article overall. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that was exactly my thoughts. Neither this, nor Wendy and Marvin are great articles on their own, but creating an article on the trio as a whole would make a better, more complete article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. Pure WP:PLOT, not seeing any analysis or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the brief development info to either Wendy and Marvin (a bad and maybe not keep-worthy article itself) or to List of Super Friends members#Wendy and Marvin. It's almost all plot (WP:NOTPLOT) and trivial appearance info, not a good basis for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename Wendy and Marvin about all three of the trios. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wendy and Marvin. DarkKnight2149 01:15, 24 January 2020 (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. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged, but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hobgoblin (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to hobgoblin - how the entity evolved from a little goblin to a big one is interesting and would make for a stronger parent article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The D&D specific version of the creature does not have any sort of coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG. There are plenty of results that establish that, yes, WP:ITEXISTS, but nothing that would support an independent article. The only sources being used currently are game books and primary sources. Merging to hobgoblin, per Cas Liber, could be possible, but given the utter lack of reliable sources, I would not recommend it. It should probably be noted that the multitude of "Keep" votes above are entirely WP:JUSTAVOTE, and should be discounted appropriately, and I find it weird that so many people continue to try this tactic. Rorshacma (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The hobgoblins of Dungeons & Dragons don't seem to be discussed in non-primary sources. I don't see why this page should be kept. Not a very active user (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a lack of secondary sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable article, complete fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:06, 21 January 2020 (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. None of the keep or merge rationales provided any reasons why and what should be merged (WP:JUSTAVOTE), but I'll keep the backlinks intact in case someone wants to create a redirect to a list. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons)

Cockatrice (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Like many of the other D&D creatures based on well-known mythological creatures, there are really no sources that give this particular version any notability. All available sources regarding this particular incarnation are either primary, in-universe only, or trivial mentions that only establish that WP:ITEXISTS but little else. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to cockatrice - same entity. different century Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication how this is different from Cockatrice. The publication history doesn't need to be covered at all for nonnotable D&D creatures. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article fails WP:GNG, consisting entirely of primary sources. "Keep" votes have presented precisely zero rationale. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article's subject has received no coverage in non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not quite sure why this one needed to be relisted, as the only Keep entries are WP:JUSTAVOTE. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable monstercruft. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:09, 21 January 2020 (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) 23:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote Basin Ranch, Arizona

Coyote Basin Ranch, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Article was generated from GNIS which lists many small ranches and other locations as "populated places" even though they don't meet our notability standards. (Split from previous batch AfD) –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Former ranch without coverage, not a notable town or village. Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Here is a blurb in AZ Highways magazine from 1947: Found inside: "COYOTE BASIN RANCH: Operated as summer mountain lodge by owners of Soda Springs Ranch. 5 miles from ... It is convenient to the Arizona Snow Bowl, and in season, activities include riding, fishing, hunting, swimming and ice skating." Does not appear to be any kind of community, one of many camps/lodges throughout AZ. MB 02:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was actually a working ranch which allowed guests, so a combination ranch/resort. It's been written up in Duncan Hines Vacation travel guides in the '50s [11] and there's lots of rough coverage, maybe not enough for WP:GNG. It wouldn't pass WP:GEOLAND #1, but might pass GNG with some research. SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coyote Basin Ranch, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough notability for an encyclopedia. This does not pass our criteria for inclusion. Wm335td (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Coconino County, Arizona, or a more precise location within. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Coconino County, Arizona. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Do not merge because it would be ridiculous to give details of a former run-of-the mill farm in a county article. If we did that for every ranch and former ranch in the county we'd also violate WP:NOTDIR. ----Pontificalibus 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CCC, WP:MILL, WP:GNG, and WP:OUTCOMES. In 2007, we might have kept such a stub, but in 2020, our standards have gotten stricter: not every ranch is notable. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darling, Arizona

Darling, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This is a cinder pit, called Darling Pit after William B. Darling, railway engineer. It might even pass GNG: [12], [13].--Pontificalibus 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, this is a gravel pit, as well as a former stop on the railroad. GNIS] even shows there was once a building there it. Certainly not a populated place. Just another minor stop on the railroad best listed in Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway if that were ever expanded sufficiently. MB 02:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Winona, Arizona. Apparently Darling is the name for the Winona station on railroad charts, possibly due to the cinder pit. [14] SportingFlyer T·C 06:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination needs to be updated. It is a second nomination for deletion. Darling Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Winona, Arizona. While this seems to refer to an area located at Darling Cinder Pit, it is not clear that Darling was a settlement. The renaming of Winona station to Darling confuses matters. It would be least confusing to cover everything in the Winona article.----Pontificalibus 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete LOL at 7&6=thirteen's attempt to refbomb the article: Timeanddate.com machine-importing all the coordinates in the GNIS does not mean "somebody considers this to be a place" (as if a human wrote [15] haha), and the Darling Cinder Pit being part of the hemisphere that can see the July 2020 lunar eclipse isn't notable. Redirect to Winona is fine, looks like the cinder pit is still in use. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the most frustrating thing is there's a chance this article could pass WP:GNG as a non-populated place separate from Winona as an article on the cinder pit, as it has indeed been written about, but now we've got a source-bombed article, and there's only about one or two of those sources which come close to demonstrating notability under GNG (and even with the new sources, the article currently doesn't include the clipping I found which makes clear Darling is just the railroad's name for the Winona station/siding.) SportingFlyer T·C 03:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can split this to Darling Cinder Pit per this source which states "Arizona is #1 cinder producer in the country with an annual production of about 1 million tons. Superlite's Darling Cinder Pit is the largest producer in the state." We currently don't have any articles on cinder mines, so this would be a good place to start. It passes WP:GNG. Then Darling, Arizona could redirect to Winona, Arizona, where the station name and pit are mentioned in the lead. ----Pontificalibus 12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are good ideas. Although Darling (or the cinder pit) is a continual important point on the railroad. I still have lots of sources to add concerning that. Where that material winds up (False choice? WP:Not paper so there could be some duplication) could be an issue.
Of course, there is a problem with your ruthlessly trimming of WP:RS discussion of Darling, Arizona. It looks like you are trying to skew the result in the pending AFD, where we are at issue about WP:GNG. Some of you have talked about "ref bombs"; I am talking about your 'ref bombing.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG per the sources now in the article. Not the article it was when this PROD was started. WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 7&6=thirteen. Sources there now are good. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for what? Darling is not a populated place. We know Darling Cinder Pit is notable, and Winona's railroad station which was renamed "Darling" is obviously mentioned by sources. However why should these two things share an article? Surely it makes more sense to mention the railroad activity at Winona's station in the Winona article, and then either have a separate article on the cinder pit, or also discuss that in the Winona article because that's the place where it's located.----Pontificalibus 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proper procedure probably needs to be that this article gets moved to Darling Cinder Pit, and then Darling, Arizona gets redirected to Winona, Arizona, which would then be edited to have a link to the cinder pit. Keeping this outright as a populated place makes no sense given what we've identified here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough valid referenced information now about the area to justify an article for it. Dream Focus 15:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes GNG with the all the references. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daze, Arizona

Daze, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Along the ATSF railroad, maybe a siding named after Wm. Daze, but I can't find anything indicating it was a populated place or notable. We need an article to list Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway sites apparently. Reywas92^Talk 21:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence this was a populated place. GNIS does have a separate entry for a station building, so this was indeed a stop on this old section of the ATSF. Per RFD on train stations, there was no consensus that every station is automatically notable, so this again needs to meet GNG. Certainly reasonable to mention in Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and redirect, but that article doesn't currently get into this level of detail. MB 01:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we could add and redirect this to a list of Atchison & Topeka stations in Arizona, that'd be the best overall result so we don't lose the place name but don't give it its own article. I've been looking at maps from the Arizona library from the 1930s and Corva has buildings nearby on the map, and a road to the settlement, but Daze, which is nearby, does not, and has no road. SportingFlyer T·C 07:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daze, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if Merge is not an option. Do not see this satisfying WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Older topo maps show that there used to be passing sidings here, so there was a "station" in that back far enough there would have been someone to deal with train orders and switches, but it doesn't imply that trains actually stopped here. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. Not every siding or station is notable. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durfee Crossing, Arizona

Durfee Crossing, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No evidence that this is or was a notable populated place. (Split from previous batch AfD) –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Former creek crossing [16] and campsite, not a populated place. Reywas92^Talk 21:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Reywas92, not a populated place or otherwise notable. A former named crossing of Chevelon Creek. The creek article is another stub; theoretically it could be developed to include some info about this crossing/camp site if someone had the inclination and more sources. NN, not enough coverage for GNG/stand-alone article. MB 01:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Durfee Crossing, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Reywas92, this not a notable place. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if Merge is not an option. Do not see this as notable under what WP:GNG is meant for. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL, WP:V, and WP:SIGCOV. Ordinary geographic location. No evidence exists that it was ever inhabited. Not enough sources exist. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Echinique Place, Arizona

Echinique Place, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Appears to be an old ranch or homestead with no evidence of notability. (Split from previous batch AfD) –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Former ranch, no results found on newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concur with nom/Reywas92. NN place, nothing but a ranch site with a water tank. MB 01:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Echinique Place, Arizona First nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Reywas92, Very little to nothing about this area. Does not pass geoland or gng. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; how does this not pass GEOLAND? J947 ^(c), at 22:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if Merge is not an option. Do not see this as notable under WP:GNG and definitely pushing the WP:GEOLAND to me. PenulisHantu (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete; passes GEOLAND but since it can't ever go past being a permastub with the current sourcing available there's no point keeping it. WP:NOTSTATS. J947 ^(c), at 22:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V, WP:MILL. I can't verify it was ever inhabited, but only that it had a weather tower, which is not by itself notable. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuyNOW TV

BuyNOW TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a shortlived cable television channel, not properly referenced as clearing either WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. This channel operated in a class of services that are exempt from having to have broadcast licenses, which means it isn't "inherently" notable under NMEDIA -- and it existed exclusively to broadcast infomercials, which means there was nothing "inherently" notable about any of its programming either. But the sources here -- the CRTC's general exemption policy for this type of service (which predates this channel's existence by 19 years and thus fails to mention it at all), a glancing mention of its existence in a (deadlinked) piece about a competing service, and one very short blurb about its launch in an industry trade magazine -- is not enough to get it over GNG. The only source here that's contributing any notability points at all is the Media in Canada hit, but it's not contributing enough notability points in and of itself if it's the only notability-assisting source on offer. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As much as I'd like an article for every network ever, networks like this, which used a loophole to air nothing but DRTV ad loops and infomercials otherwise ignored by 98% of the viewing public, just plain doesn't meet WP:N. We have infomercial networks here, but they have something outstanding (like OnTV4U's OTA distribution or like Access Television Network, earned WP:N based on angering hockey and basketball fans for their existence under a now well-shut loophole) which allow them that N. It just isn't found here since it was confined to an easily ignored channel space. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the article has existed for 5+ years with no issues, the channel existed for about 3 years, there's 3 articles referencing it (I fixed the deadlink so they all work now), it was launched in millions of homes through Rogers Cable (one of the largest TV providers in Canada) and smaller systems such as V Media and Zazeem, it's a unique original brand (not like a local version of some international channel), I see no reason why it playing infomercials is not worthy of an article, and I see it has relevance by way of its connection to Evan Kosiner, the guy who launched the channel, has his own article, and its one of many companies he launched or tried to launch. musimax. (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "the thing existed", it is "the thing was the subject of enough reliable source coverage about it to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH". So if you want it kept, where's the GNG-making media coverage about it? Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

musimax. (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Evan Kosiner. Deletion is the wrong way to go when there is encyclopedic information and a clear merger target. Modernponderer (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That BLP article is a WP:PROMO/WP:RESUME quagmire (and none of his channels with CRTC approval ever came to the air) and deserves deletion or a complete WP:TNTing (consider this a support for either). Rare that I say this on AFD, but hell no to any kind of merger with his article. Nate • (chatter) 01:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From Wikipedia:NMEDIA, for a cable television channel "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable." So, this was a national channel with about 2 million subscribers from multiple distributors (Rogers, V Media, and Zazeen), as per the cited source in the article. Even if you were to label it as a lowly public access channel, with 2 million subs or more, I'd say that is objectively notable. When you look at the notability guidelines you sourced, there are 5 items: 1) Significant coverage, the media sources mentioned discuss the topic in detail and directly, and its not a trivial mention, and although its 2 articles, there is no mention about how many numbers it must be so I'd say, Yes, that ones met; 2) Reliable: both sources have editorial integrity and are independent from eachother and wrote their own separate articles, so Check that one off; 3) Sources: this is what the definition is "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." As you can see in the article, there are multiple sources (2), they are secondary sources and provide objective research, and as the definition states, there need not be any specific number of sources, except multiple, of which 2 can count as multiple; 4) Independent of the subject: this excludes works produced by the article's subjects owner or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. As you can see from the article, the 2 sources are not owned or affiliated with BuyNow TV or themselves, and the articles are also not advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or from BuyNow TV's website, so thats another Check; and finally 5) Presumed: this one from what I can tell, just assures that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and when you look at that definition, this article does not meet that definition either which is, it's not a summary-only descriptions of works, lyric database, excessive listings of unexplained statistics, or an exhaustive logs of software updates. So its a check on this one as well. So, in summary of all this.... BuyNow TV is an objective article that stands on the merits of itself by Wikipedias own standards and should be kept. If it meets Wikipedias own guidelines, then it should be an automatic Keep. [revote struck] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musimax (talk • contribs)

NMEDIA explicitly states that TV channels are not exempted from having to get over GNG or CORPDEPTH just because they exist — the notability test is never just the things the article says, but the quality and depth and range of the references that can be shown to support the things it says. But I've already explained above why the references here are not cutting it: one is just the CRTC's general policy on this type of service, which does not mention this channel at all as it predates this channels existence by 19 years, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. A second source merely mentions this channel's existence in passing, in the process of being about a competing service owned by a different company, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. And the only source present here that is about this channel is a short blurb, not a substantive piece of coverage, and thus does not represent enough coverage to get this channel over the notability bar all by itself — even just a basic GNG pass requires more than just one source that's actually about the channel. It's true that GNG doesn't require a specific fixed number of sources, but it does require more than just one blurb. And again, NMEDIA does not grant television channels a free exemption from having to have sufficient sources to clear GNG just because they existed — NMEDIA very explicitly states, in fact, that the notability criteria for TV channels still requires reliable source coverage about the channel, and that television and radio broadcasters are not exempted from having to clear GNG just because they existed.

But also, please note that you are not allowed to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion: you may comment as many times as you like, but your followup comments may not contain a bolded restatement of the "keep" vote you've already given. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by all of the info I noted above, it meets all 5 notability standards. The info you mention about the CRTC article, that it doesn't mention the channel, is 19 years before the channel launched, and counting nothing towards the channel being reliable is all opinion. So what if its 19 years before the channel launched? Wikipedia has, from what I can tell, no rule on such timelines for references. It's relevant because it notes the channel is subject to this rule (even if not in name) and doesn't have a licence, unlike the majority of other Canadian channels which need one. musimax. (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by what I said, with the added bonus that NMEDIA backs me up. NMEDIA requires a media outlet to be the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear our notability standards — regardless of the topic, the notability test is never just the things the article says, but is always the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says. It is entirely relevant that the CRTC decision dates from 19 years before this channel existed — because that fact means that source is not about this channel, and thus does not constitute evidence of this channel's notability. The rule is not that as long as the article has footnotes in it, the topic is automatically notable enough for inclusion here — to constitute support for a topic's notability, a source has to be about that topic, and sources which either (a) briefly mention the topic in the process of being about something else, or (b) don't mention the topic at all, but are present merely to verify a stray fact, are not support for a topic's notability. That is how notability works on here: a source only speaks to the notability of the topic in question if that source is directly about that topic. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I continue to support Bearcat's reasoning for deletion; NMEDIA and the fact this is an infomercial channel means by far nobody is going to write about it; there's nothing to write about here. And even if two million people were consistently watching this network day in and out (which would earn N based on 'why on earth are two million Canadians watching an infomercial channel?', but be nearly all negative press), we don't care about viewership overall; just about overall notability. It just doesn't have it. Nate • (chatter) 03:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the only feasible merger target has been deleted, and the information is undoubtedly encyclopedic. Notability is marginal, but for this type of page (as opposed to a BLP like the other one) there is good reason to keep the standard as low as policy permits, for the benefit of readers. Modernponderer (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are readers benefited by keeping minimally sourced articles about topics of no significant or enduring public interest? Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bearcat: Most of Wikipedia consists of obscure articles of "no significant or enduring public interest". That's not an inclusion criterion here. Modernponderer (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I didn't say it was. Conversely, reliably sourcing the topic over WP:GNG is an inclusion criterion here, and it's one this article is not meeting. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of reliable independent sources able to,demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough RS to show notability. If there is a redirect/merge target I would support that. Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur Park, Montana

King Arthur Park, Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Run-of-the-mill subdivision/trailer park with no significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a difficult one since it's a manufactured home community outside Bozeman. Articles like [17] refer to it as being in Bozeman, and the addresses go to Bozeman, but it is an official US census-designated place (type it in here) which I think probably qualifies for "legally defined populated place." SportingFlyer T·C 23:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to WP:GEOLAND, populated, legally-recognized places are considered notable, and official designation by the U.S. Census Bureau certainly counts as legal recognition. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that CDPs have any legal standing. They're just used for statistical purposes. –dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a manufactured home park with about 200 lots. The news article above calls it a neighborhood and as such needs to meet GNG under GEOLAND#2. Census-designated places are defined for statistical purposes only. MB 00:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid delete rationale. If you believe it falls under GEOLAND#2 then that mandates a merge: "information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it", which would be merge to Gallatin County, Montana#Census-designated places.----Pontificalibus 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, often legal definitions differ from popular definitions and this may be such a place. Meets GEOLAND however and is still recognised as a place in general terminology. In cases like this GNG is also arguably met due to significant coverage existing is statistical listings such as this. J947 ^(c), at 01:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SIGCOV requires coverage in reliable sources, i.e. those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is there any evidence that ourhero.in has a competent editorial team or employs any sort of fact-checking before republishing data mined from government sources? Dozens of sites function as GNIS/census mirrors or use their location data, but I wouldn't consider these to be significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My theory is that if they are entirely based off government sources so they are reliable but upon reflection since they are basically all copies of each other in different formats they only should count for one source. GEOLAND should be enough for notability though. J947 ^(c), at 03:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a distinct named populated place outwith the boundaries of Bozeman, it therefore doesn't fall under GEOLAND2 as a subdivision but GEOLAND1 as a legally recognized place. ----Pontificalibus 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND, this a census designated place with a population. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's small, but apparently a real place. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of school pranks

List of school pranks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. Also note WP:NOTDIR. Very little is gained from an incomplete listing of potential ways that kids in school can make trouble. This is an encyclopedia, not reddit. In a previous discussion, arguments along the lines of Everything on this page is real were made, including "I have been out of school for 25 years but have either been on the giving or receiving end of nearly all of the pranks." and "school pranks are well known and easily verifiable", however that is not reason enough to keep an article. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd advocate delete largely because the entire history is constant addition of bullshit that then has to be removed. It's a magnet for idiots and adds nothing over what's in the school prank article. Guy (help!) 18:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no school prank article, it was renamed list of school pranks in 2008. Dream Focus 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of these are particularly known for "primarily occurring in a school setting", e.g. mooning. They're just your run-of-the-mill pranks. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP but rename to List of adolescent pranks. These aren't all done in schools after all. Dream Focus 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What's wrong with the existing List of practical joke topics (other than the clumsy title)? Some of the entries (those with, you know, actual articles) are already there, e.g. Pantsing, Wedgie. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• These are not practical jokes but bullying attack. Some things on that list do not belong there. We could also just put things like that in a renamed list called list of abusive attacks immature morons considered amusing. Dream Focus 15:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Guy. Personally, WP:BEANS also comes to mind but I guess that's not really a persuasive argument for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (festival)

Aurora (festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A article that heavily uses advertising language and has almost exclusively first-party sources. I cannot, after a bit of searching, find any evidence of notability (May be due to the fact it's overshadowed by another festival of the same name?), and as such it fails WP:NEVENT. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a noteworthy event, fails WP:NEVENT. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. It's one of hundreds of thousands of annual college programs. No secondary cites. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES entry referenced to press releases, local news and similar low quality sources. Not seeing what makes this company pass WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Looks like WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the author and sole editor of the article I have a rather clear COI and therefore won't formally vote either way here. However since this AfD I've tripled the article length with some more information to attempt to establish notability and a lot more references, although I'm aware it's still very much borderline, and there are absolutely a lot of weak and likely unnecessary references mixed in, I sometimes forget more is not always better. I do invite the original nominator to read it again to see if the additions help with any of the noted concerns. Understandable if not, as I said it's very borderline but I personally felt when creating the article it was enough to pass WP:NCOMPANY. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Is there any source that discusses the company in-depth that's not promotional? All I see are still mentions in passing, press releases and their rewrites, plus niche awards / rankings. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi Piotrus, not sure as i have only added this afd to a list, you may have meant to direct your question to EoRdE6? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, @EoRdE6:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:BARE. Technically, this passes due to WP:SIGCOV - ongoing and significant coverage in reliable sources. I have not !voted an outright keep because, from a neutral perspective, they do not seem to have done anything particularly notable. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep substantially expanded versus the version at time of nomination for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only "update" since the !votes above has been to update the number of employees. No new references have been added. I stick with my original comment to Delete and I will add that notability is not inherited, so while they may have been involved in high profile projects, not a single significant reference is written *about* this organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 21 January 2020 (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. Well, this is a complicated close. The key concern raised by the nomination is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, i.e the list has no clear inclusion criteria and is a mostly arbitrary assembly of facts. There is also a concern that the list is "trivial" but that's not really a policy or guideline (WP:TRIVIA is but from the discussion it's not clear that it would actually apply). The keep arguments are more numerous but they mostly do not address the delete arguments (with the exception of Andrew Davidson's arguments to keep), rather discussing WP:LISTN which isn't at issue, stating that the topic's problems can be fixed without explaining why or calling the list "Interesting" without explaining how that invalidates the concerns raised by the delete camp. On balance, it doesn't seem like the delete argument clearly prevails over the keep one in terms of number or strength of argument, as there is enough uncertainty about whether the INDISCRIMINATE concern can be resolved w/o deletion. Thus this is a no consensus but perhaps closer to delete than to keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential firsts

List of United States presidential firsts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is an an indiscriminate collection of information. For example, how does one decide which things to list for George Washington, who was by definition the first President to do absolutely every single thing he did as President. Adams was the "first president to be a Unitarian", but only because the previous president wasn't. Virtually none of the religious "firsts" have any substantial commentary other than by fans of that denomination (possible exception being JFK, whose Catholicism did generate widespread discussion), but JFK as "first president to be assassinated and die on the same day"? How arbitrary is that? What defines "first president to have a son marry in the White House" as a significant first? Why should we include historical inevitabilities like the first president to ride in a motor car, something all would surely have done had the motor car existed? Why choose the number 10 for "first president to have 10 or more biological children"? Why not 7 or 5? What qualifies New York State as significant ("first president to be born in New York State")? First president to predecease his father? Is that significant? One or two of these may be notable in context (e.g. first president to travel abroad while in office, which might well be significant in an article on presidential foreign travel) but for the most part this looks like a list of things where people have a pet topic, have looked for the first president associated with the pet topic, and added it to the article. Guy (help!) 10:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivia and indiscriminate, I can see some value in a list of political firsts as being relevant to the position of president but nearly all of this article is trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The test for such a list is not what we editors think about it – see WP:IDLI. No, what matters is WP:LISTN – whether "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". A quick search soon finds respectable coverage of presidential firsts such as New York Times; Reuters; Saturday Evening Post. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Andrew Davidson, no, the test is WP:IINFO (which is core policy). There are no objective criteria for inclusion. Guy (help!) 16:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's not a core policy; they are listed at WP:COPO and WP:IINFO isn't one of them. In any case, WP:IINFO does not apply. That policy seeks to exclude raw, undigested bulk data and lists four specific cases: lyrics, software versions, voluminous statistics and summaries of creative works. The page in question is none of these things nor is it anything like them. It's a highly focussed and specific list of presidential milestones, each of which is, by definition, unique – milestones like the first black president or the first president to be assassinated. This information not raw, excessive or indiscriminate. Such criticisms might be applied to something like a list of presidential diary engagements, which listed just about everything which the presidents have done, but this is nowhere near that. The list's scope echoes that used by numerous reliable and secondary sources which express themselves in just the same terms and so we're good. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Honestly, I'm surprised it took five and half years for somebody to try and delete this. That being said, many reliable sources (far and above what Andrew Davidson has listed) have released lists of presidential firsts, so this passes LISTN and should be kept. The nominator's argument boils down to, "I don't like that certain things are listed, so let's delete the whole damn thing". If the nominator has problems with some of the individual entries on this list, the place for that is the article's talk page, not AfD pbp 15:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Purplebackpack89, There are indeed lists of presidential firsts and all kinds of other firsts (magazines have to fill space). The question is whether the firsts in this list are selected according to objective criteria or whether it's an indiscriminate collection of information. How do you square including anything other than "first president" for Lincoln Washington? What could he conceivably have been or done that did not qualify? And much of the rest actually fail the same test - things that would ave been impossible previously (first car trip), for example, or things that are inherent to the history of the US, not the presidency (first trips to X or Y country). It's nothing to do with liking or not liking what's included, the problem is the lack of any objective criteria to decide. Guy (help!) 16:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's kind of hard for me to take you seriously when you referred to Lincoln as "first president" instead of Washington. Your comments again are arguing for deletion of the whole list because you disagree with some of the entries. Again, this isn't really an AfD matter, but I also believe some of your criteria for removing entries (such as things that would have been impossible previously) are arbitrary. pbp 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An inconsequential error I did not make in the nomination. Now, list all the things Washington did in office that were not done for the first time. Focus on the policy (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and demonstrate how this list somehow isn't indiscriminate. I am arguing for deletion of the whole list because there is no objective basis for deciding what goes in or out. For a list of Academy Award nominees, we have clear criteria. For a list of presidential firsts? Not so much. A lot of these read like those Guinness world records for "first man to stand on one leg for over four hours on top of a pole while whistling Dixie". I mean, yes, it's the first, but so what? Many of them are accidents of history (first president born after the declaration of independence was a historical inevitability and it's totally arbitrary which one qualified), some are matters of fashion (first president to have facial hair), some would have been impossible for any prior president (first president to ride in a motor car). You could perhaps defend it if every single item was supported by multiple references to "first president to do X" sources that establish that this specific first is considered independently significant, but it's going to be trivial to find one source pegging a specific president as first to do virtually anything, because that's the nature of trivia. Someone writing about the history of Marine One will note in passing that Eisenhower was the first president to travel by helicopter - but his predecessor was the first who could even theoretically have done so as helicopters were experimental until the mid 1940s at least. Arbitrariness, fashion and historical accidents are the hallmarks of this article. Guy (help!) 09:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]