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) 00:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Winners Don't Use Drugs (  | 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 are only three sources, two of which are reviews of media parodying the phrase. Recycle It, Don't Trash It! was previously deleted, so I don't see why this should stay. Most Horizontal Primate ( talk) 23:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Just doing a cursory Google search on both news and books shows this phrase popping up a lot, and because it was coming from the Advertising Council of the DOJ so there's gov't documents on it. Books are showing a lot of hints more than just passing mention (there's connection to McGruff here as well), so there would need to be a more thorough review of print sources that can easily support why this campaign and any effects that it had to reduce drug use by game players. -- Masem ( t) 06:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge into American Amusement Machine Association which appears to be notable and should be recreated with proper sources. It seems to have been primarily behind adding the slogan to arcade games. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Did you not google the topic before nominating it for deletion? There's tons of sources out there waiting to be pulled. This phrase is arguably one of the most famous phrases in gaming history. This should not be even nominated. Bluedude588 ( talk) 16:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Such as? It would help if you listed the sources in question. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 02:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Inverse and Escapist have lengthy articles on the phrase. Bluedude588 ( talk) 16:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Masem’s comment, simply doing a quick Google search provides plenty of reliable sources covering this. I’m sure with some digging that more can be found, but it still has enough coverage to warrant itself having an article. It’s like the nominator didn’t even bother looking for anything before attempting to nominate this for deletion. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - extremely notable hoax. The inverse article is fairly in depth, as is this one, I've little doubt more could be found. Wily D 17:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep this is a notable hoax. Lightburst ( talk) 19:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Not sufficiently notable fictional character. "Elfhelm" has a bunch of Google scholar hits, but all but two are either for an ancient Briton or a different, apparently unrelated, fictional character. Of the two sources I could find, one is a list of names titled "Spell Checking the Lord of the Rings" (not in-depth) and the other source doesn't appear to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm ( talk) 22:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. A very minor character — with a common name!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Another piece of fancruft that is already better covered at https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Elfhelm . Keeping such articles here just does a disservice to our readers. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete ot every character in an epic romance is notable. At least not one written in the last 500 years. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to War of the Ring#Rohan, where the character is mentioned in context. The name is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 23:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG. Belongs on fandom. Kacper IV ( talk) 12:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Another piece of fancruft Wm335td ( talk) 17:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Given two consecutive relists with no further discussion, I feel we're at a point of no consensus given the requirements to do a third relist. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Samurai Kids (  | 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 evidence of any notability for this film. Neither of the two refs are RS (IMDB and MUBI.com. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   21:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep This source says that the film won a Golden Gloss Prize, which have been covered in eiga.com, and so it may pass WP:NFO 3. ミラ P 04:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Beyond the Last Mountain (  | 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 news found of this film in google Memon KutianaWala ( talk) 16:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 25. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: it appears that this was the first ever English-language film made in Pakistan, was screened at the New York Film Festival in 1976, and was reviewed by David Robinson of The Times in London and A.R. Slote of The Star in Karachi, among others, all of which would seem to indicate a degree of notability. However, I do not have access to a newspaper archive to check these facts, so it would be helpful if someone else could verify these details. Richard3120 ( talk) 12:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the offline sources mentioned above include two reviews in national newspapers The Times and Pakistan's Star indicate that WP:NFILM criteria 1 seems to be passed and there is no need for deletion in this case, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Men of Twilight (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Tolkien concept so obscure not even Google can find information on it. Basically no in-universe notability, really none the real world. Hog Farm ( talk) 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{'s public account} 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Honestly, I was thinking of a different franchise when I saw that link. I would assume that most readers would have a similar response. We should not have articles on obscure content that can easily be confused with more notable things. ― Susmuffin  ^Talk 00:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Doesn't even have primary sources, except for a brief reference to LOTR. Completely trivial.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Super obscure Tolkien fancruft, fails GNG. Again, this kind of stuff can happily exist at wikia, the right link is https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Middle_Men -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete This level of detail would only be justified if Middle Earth were a real place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am surprised at how close the text is here and at the Wikia site. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG. This belongs on fandom, not here. Kacper IV ( talk) 12:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 00:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Werner G. Scharff (  | 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 businessperson that fails WP:ANYBIO. The sources provided are not satisfactory, the only reliable sources and publication about the subject is about his death, the rest are his name being listed on directories nothing more.

Also it was created by a blocked user. Lapablo ( talk) 22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo ( talk) 22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lapablo ( talk) 22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{'s public account} 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{'s public account} 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{'s public account} 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up. But a search turned up numerous reliable sources, including newspaper articles and books, and not just business listings, as the nom stated, about the subject across several decades. Many of those sources are already in the article, including lengthy obituaries in The New York Times here and Los Angeles Times here. The subject, an established business owner, clothing designer and manufacturer, easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 03:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep notable per RS. The article has reliable sources and others also exist per WP:NEXIST Lightburst ( talk) 19:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Kyi-Leo (  | 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 and bordering on PROMOTION. Another registered trademark (look at the first reference [1]) "breed" which is reality is a line of crossbreds marketed for the promotion of a business’s (puppy farm) product. I can find only one RS on Google with only a mention and scant information, the remaining Google hits are the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" from the same authors that pump out identical books retitled for every designer crossbreed imaginable. Cavalryman ( talk) 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Notability not shown, list anything worth salvaging at List of dog crossbreeds but I wouldn't put a made-up trademark there! Reywas92 ^Talk 22:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG, I concur with the book search, it should reside on the ever-growing list of cross-breeds that will eventually total the 30,000 combinations possible. William Harris talk 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SIGCOV. This is the biggest nonsense I've seen in months. It's not just that the subject is not notable, it's not even wrong. It claims it's a this kind of bread, back-tracks, and then it says something else. The sourcing is laughable. Sorry not sorry. Bearian ( talk) 20:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - right in line with the above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Prelight Films (  | 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 subject with dubious ( WP:PROMO) creation and contribution history. Also true for the article on their film series, In the Tracks of. Both fail WP:GNG and the film fails WP:NFILM.

Accordingly, I am also nominating the following related pages:

In the Tracks of (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete due to heavy promotional tone. TH1980 ( talk) 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete both; I don't see reliable source coverage for the company to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, and the series appears to fail WP:NFILM. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 00:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Starlight Networks (  | 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:RS, WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Goncalves, Marcus (1999). IP Multicasting: Concepts and Applications. New York: McGraw Hill. p. 368. ISBN  0-07-913791-1. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
  2. Malik, Om (1998-05-13). "Online broadcasting". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
  3. "US Desktop Video Conferencing Market 1994-1999". Mountain View: Input. 1994. p. V-9. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
  4. Miller, C. Kenneth (1999). Multicast Networking and Applications. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. pp. 118–120. ISBN  0-201-30979-3. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
  5. Bunzel, Mark J.; Morris, Sandra K. (1994). Multimedia Applications Development: Using Indeo Video and Dvi Technology (2 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. pp. 76, 223–224. ISBN  0-07-043300-3. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
  6. Varon, Elana (1998-08-30). "Customs will use StarLive for broadcast". Federal Computer Week. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29.
  7. Schroeder, Erica (1992-10-05). "StarWorks spreads video across LANs". PC Week. 9 (40). Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
  8. Hambeln, Matt (1996-12-23). "Bloomberg TV has digital take". Computerworld. Vol. 30, no. 52. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
  9. Lapolla, Stephanie (1996-09-30). "StarWorks is born for NT". PC Week. Vol. 13, no. 39. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
  10. Streeter, April (1992-09-28). "Starlight video server for Macs, PCs: 486-based system delivers QuickTime". MacWEEK. Vol. 6, no. 34. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
  11. Chernicoff, David P. (1993-03-01). "StarWorks taps 10BaseT LANs to provide multiuser video". PC Week. Vol. 10, no. 8. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
  12. Schwartz, Jeffrey (1998-08-03). "Marriage Brings Video Apps Under One Roof". InternetWeek. No. 719. UBM plc. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
  13. Thompson, George A. (1995-12-01). "Battle of the networked stars". HP Professional. Vol. 9, no. 12. 1105 Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.
  14. Caulfield, Brian (1998-06-08). "Selling the Government On Streaming Content". Internet World. Vol. 4, no. 21. Penton. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale.

  Sources with quotes

  Goncalves, Marcus (1999). IP Multicasting: Concepts and Applications. New York: McGraw Hill. p. 368. ISBN  0-07-913791-1. Retrieved 2019-11-29. The book notes: Starlight Networks Starlight Networks' challenge was to provide full-motion video and multi-media applications to desktop PCs, using existing hardware, without slowing down the network or interfering with other mission-critical applications. To accomplish that, the company developed a data streaming software that provides guaranteed delivery of live or stored full-motion video, audio and animation to desktops without sacrificing network speed or capacity. It is possible to run multimedia applications and video-enhanced web pages from services quickly and reliably without downloading. Starlight Networks understands the technology required to guarantee delivery of full-motion video to solving the problems inherent in this effort. Users are demanding access to mixed media applications on an unprecedented scale. These applications may generate enough audio/video traffic to overwhelm an unprotected local area network. Starlight Networks offers powerful software packages that enable organizations to stream on-demand video, live broadcasts and multimedia applications to hundreds of desktops across existing networks: The book then discusses StarLive, StarCenter, StarCast, and StarWorks. Malik, Om (1998-05-13). "Online broadcasting". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29. The article notes: As the chairman of Starlight Networks, a Mountain View, Calif.-based software company, Long has never lost sight of his main objective--to develop streaming products for corporations like Boeing, General Motors and Bloomberg. ... Long and Starlight cofounder Charlie Bass (who also started Ungermann-Bass, one of the first Ethernet companies) pitched the concept to venture capitalists. Basing his technology on MPEG1 and MPEG2 video, Long and Bass came up with a proprietary technology to achieve high-quality video streaming. (MPEG--Moving Pictures Experts Group--is a standard for compressing video, and MPEG-2 is used in DVD movies.) Excited VCs pumped in $2 million in seed money, and over the next six years the company raised an additional $20 million in five rounds of funding from VCs like Sequoia Capital, InterWest, Access Partners and Star Ventures. ... The company has developed a $50,000 software package dubbed StarWorks. The software has already won widespread support. There are 300 companies--100 of which are already clients and 200 that are testing Starlight's software to stream video over their networks. ... The financial services industry has also embraced Starlight with open arms, representing almost 50% of the company's sales. (Government and education sectors come in a close second and third.) Brokerage firm SmithBarney is going to replace its hoot-and-holler trading system with Starlight's software--a contract that could be worth a couple of million dollars for a company which did upwards of $5 million in sales in 1997. "US Desktop Video Conferencing Market 1994-1999". Mountain View: Input. 1994. p. V-9. Retrieved 2019-11-29. The report notes: This report and related research is part of INPUT's Market Analysis Program (MAP). This program provides market research, reports, consulting and recommendations to the management of leading vendors in the information services industry and to information systems functions of user organizations. The report notes: 9. Starlight Networks Inc. StarWorks Release 1.7 networking software Starlight Networks' products allow for real-time storage and network management of digital video applications. Its current technology includes video application servers, based on a client/server platform configuration that allows up to 40 simultaneous users to share full-motion, full-screen video applications. It also supports a variety of network configuration and video content. The recent StarWorks upgrade provides users with up to 50Mbps of video/audio streaming capacity and adds bandwidth reservation, which is designed to improve throughput to multiple users. This will provide desktop users with Ethernet links as much as 1.2Mbps throughput. This will require, however, an FDDI backbone between the StarWorks server and an Ethernet switched hub. The company's technology, as it continues to evolve, will be complementary to store and forward digital video applications, broadcast video and eventually desktop video conferencing over LAN/WAN network configurations. Miller, C. Kenneth (1999). Multicast Networking and Applications. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. pp. 118–120. ISBN  0-201-30979-3. Retrieved 2019-11-29. The book notes on page 118: Besides the giants of the Web, Microsoft and Netscape, smaller companies such as Icast, Precept Software, Starlight Networks, and RealNetworks have been formed in the last few years to address real-time multimedia applications. ... *Starlight Networks was acquired by PictureTel in July 1998. The book notes on page 119: Today, Paribas uses streaming video from Starlight Networks to enhance its information delivery. ... In a piilot application, live feeds of Reuters and Bloomberg television are delivered directly to traders' desktop computers via Starlight Networks' streaming video software and multicast IP. As a consequence, traders no longer have to leave their desks to watch these broadcasts in a viewing room. Rather, they can keep abreast of late-breaking financial news and their investment portfolio activity simultaneously. ... On February 17, 1998, Starlight Networks announced that Smith Barney, the United States' second largest retail brokerage firm, was implementing its StarCast software. The adoption represented an innovative move by Smith Barney to deliver real-time, video-based financial information to approximately 11,000 financial consultants and managers at nearly 500 remove branch locations across a satellite network. Smith Barney advisers will be able to receive live information from industry and market analysts directly on their desktop workstations; in the future, they will have access to commercial video feeds, custom-developed reports, and multimedia training material. The book notes on page 120: Smith Barney has been working with Starlight Networks for six months to complete the prototype system. The video rollout started in the second half of 1997. The primary video content will consist of analysts' daily briefings, which will be delivered directly and in real time to the desktop. A video encoder running StarCast Multicaster will send the feed to local desktops at the New York headquarters and retransmit the feed via Smith Barneys' satellite network. At each receiving location, a video server running StarCast Recaster will then take the feed and multicast it to all local desktops. Financial consultants will be able to remain at their desks and view broadcasts on their PC desktops through the StarCast Viewer, without disrupting other applications or feeds. [three more paragraphs about StarCast] Bunzel, Mark J.; Morris, Sandra K. (1994). Multimedia Applications Development: Using Indeo Video and Dvi Technology (2 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. pp. 76, 223–224. ISBN  0-07-043300-3. Retrieved 2019-11-29. The book notes on page 76: StarWorks from Starlight Networks, Inc. uses a different approach to providing multiple workstations accessing video files. StarWorks, when installed on an Intel468 microprocessor-based EISA server supports up to 20 simultaneous multimedia users accessing streams of video, audio, and animation. StarWorks allows users to access video and other applications simultaneously, requiring no application modification to DOS and Windows applications, and coexists with other LAN protocols used by network operating systems. The book notes on pages 223–224: Starlight Networks is also marketing networking software optimized for the delivery of multimedia information over a local area network. Starlight combines the capability of controlling the delivery of motion video and audio files in continuous streams. In its optimal configuration, motion video and audio files are stored on a separate, high-performance file server in a switched ethernet topology, using an intelligent hub. In this way, when an application requires the higher data rate for contiguous multimedia files, the information is directed through the intelligent switch hub to the appropriate workstation. Starlight has been successful delivering multimedia data in the worst-case scenario of 20 multimedia workstations in a classroom, where all students are working on the same lesson at the same time. Varon, Elana (1998-08-30). "Customs will use StarLive for broadcast". Federal Computer Week. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29. The article notes: The Customs Service will use new video streaming technology from Starlight Networks Inc., to broadcast live over the Internet a briefing on a system for collecting information from importers. The briefing, planned for Sept. 3, will be distributed over the Internet at the same time it is broadcast by satellite. ... Observers said the Customs event is one sign of growing interest among agencies in using Internet-based video and audio technologies. "There's a tremendous amount of initial interest, at least in examining the technologies that are available, for delivering video and audio online, said Al Lill, vice president and research director with Gartner Group. He said the most prominent applications for the technology are distance learning, telemedicine and faster information dissemination. ... Starlight, which is being acquired by videoconferencing vendor PictureTel Corp., is the "most prominent firm in the industry for applications in which video quality matters, Lill said. Schroeder, Erica (1992-10-05). "StarWorks spreads video across LANs". PC Week. 9 (40). Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: Star light, star bright, what video should I watch tonight? Networked PC users will soon be able to ask themselves that question with the help of startup Starlight Networks Inc., which last week introduced a system that allows as many as 20 users to simultaneously access and view videos located centrally on a standard Ethernet network. ... Industry analysts said StarWorks will increase the market for networked video products. "The product is outstanding, and the most important thing is they took a very pragmatic approach in terms of preserving investment," said Albert Lill, vice president at Gartner Group Inc., a market-research firm in Stamford, Conn. "It explodes the myth that ATM [asynchronous transfer mode] and FDDI [Fiber Distributed Data Interface] are required to run video over a network." Users of the product will be "anybody who has any requirements for a visual database, anyone with complex products and extensive field service and support organizations, as well as advertising agencies and media agencies," he said. Hambeln, Matt (1996-12-23). "Bloomberg TV has digital take". Computerworld. Vol. 30, no. 52. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: At Bloomberg TV, financial news gets shown and updated continuously around the world. But all that video isn't stored on videotape. Instead, it is kept on Sun Solaris digital networking servers in New York, Tokyo and London and accessed with StarWorks software by Starlight Networks, Inc. in Mountain View, Calif. News is then sent by satellite around the world, and ends up on radio and television stations such as USA Network that are viewed by millions of people each day. Bloomberg TV, a subsidiary of Bloomberg LP in New York, has used the software for two years on its Sun Microsystems, Inc. servers. The company soon will upgrade with StarWorks 3.0, which was released in early December, for higher quality and speed, Bloomberg officials said. ... StarWorks allows multiple digitized news segments to be stored and retrieved at the same time over a standard Ethernet network. Television-quality video of 30 frame/sec. can be provided. StarWorks 3.0 provides recording and playback of a video stream at speeds up to 200M bit/sec. ... Starlight's competitors include Sun, Digital Equipment Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Oracle Corp. and IBM. But they haven't shown the working knowledge of networks that Starlight has, Ball said. Lapolla, Stephanie (1996-09-30). "StarWorks is born for NT". PC Week. Vol. 13, no. 39. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: Starlight Networks Inc. will announce this week availability of its Windows NT-based digital video management technology. StarWorks 3.0 is capable of delivering both live and stored audio, video and graphical media streams from a Windows NT server to hundreds of desktops simultaneously via Netscape Communications Corp.'s Navigator or Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer browsers. ... The U.S. Marine Corps depends on StarWorks field training before sending soldiers into a war zone. Streeter, April (1992-09-28). "Starlight video server for Macs, PCs: 486-based system delivers QuickTime". MacWEEK. Vol. 6, no. 34. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: Full-motion QuickTime movies may be playing soon on Macintosh Ethernet networks. Due next month, the Starlight Media Server from Starlight Networks Inc. will transform an Intel 486-based computer into a video application server for Macs, IBM PCs and compatibles, and Unix workstation clients. Unix-based server software, called StarWorks, will control an array of hard drives to support simultaneous delivery of QuickTime or DVI (Digital Video Interactive) video clips to as many as 10 Mac clients for about $23,000. The Starlight Media Server, which initially will work with 10BASE T or thin Ethernet cabling, includes the following components: Chernicoff, David P. (1993-03-01). "StarWorks taps 10BaseT LANs to provide multiuser video". PC Week. Vol. 10, no. 8. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: With its StarWorks digital video networking software, Starlight Networks Inc. is the first to provide network users with a way to piggyback on a video solution that provides the familiar 30-frame-per-second data rate without requiring a dedicated high-performance network. ... Starlight also provides a proprietary Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)-like data storage and management scheme that supports the high-performance data streaming necessary for maintaining a full-motion-video data rate. ... We could find no obvious flaws in the StarWorks' implementation. However, we did encounter some configuration problems, in part because of the lack of a Digital Video Interactive (DVI) standard. Most of the standards issues are expected to be resolved within the next 18 months. Schwartz, Jeffrey (1998-08-03). "Marriage Brings Video Apps Under One Roof". InternetWeek. No. 719. UBM plc. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: But PictureTel Corp., the leading supplier of videoconferencing systems, is hoping to marry the two technologies as a result of its pending acquisition of Starlight Networks Inc. PictureTel last month disclosed its intent to acquire Star-light for an undisclosed sum. ... Starlight is regarded as a leading supplier of streaming multimedia software and video-on-demand servers. The company could be just what PictureTel needs to bring the conferencing and IP multicasting worlds together, said Gartner Group analyst Al Lill. "Instead of going to one set of vendors to get videoconferenc-ing and another to get video-on-demand, customers will be able to go to one vendor," Lill said. ... Lill also said Starlight's streaming video technology is best suited for large-scale enterprise applications because it supports both low- and high-bandwidth connections. Thompson, George A. (1995-12-01). "Battle of the networked stars". HP Professional. Vol. 9, no. 12. 1105 Media. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: "It's a litmus test of the viability of video distribution over LANs," according to Jim Greene, analyst for Summit Strategies (Boston, Mass.). Microsoft's Tiger and Oracle's VideoServer will be eventual competitors predicts Greene, but for now the HP/Starlight combination is unchallenged. Although claiming that the solution is scalable up to HP 9000 systems, it remains to be seen because not be available until sometime in 1996 when Starlight's UNIX-based StarWorks product is ported to the HP-UX platform. In the meantime, the Intel solution will be available from HP direct and indirect channels and sold for information-on-demand, performance support and video training applications in the financial services, telecommunications and retail markets. Unlike HP's own MPower and InSoft's Communique! (another HP alliance), which are UNIX-based video conferencing solutions, the Starlight bundle is a video streaming technology. "They distribute information differently," explains Greene. Caulfield, Brian (1998-06-08). "Selling the Government On Streaming Content". Internet World. Vol. 4, no. 21. Penton. Archived from the original on 2019-11-29. Retrieved 2019-11-29 – via Gale. The article notes: It's the job of John Downey, deputy director of information management for the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (ACQWeb), to get information to the people at each facility responsible for buying the supplies the military needs. But when Downey decided streaming video was the way to go, he realized he couldn't rely on the kind of homogeneous high-speed networks common at large corporations. Instead, he turned to a combination of products from corporate intranet streaming specialist Starlight Networks Inc., Mountain View, Calif., and from RealNetworks Inc., Seattle, which dominates the market for streaming video over the public Internet. The solution Downey assembled can play high-quality video over the ATM backbone at the Pentagon's air-conditioned offices as well as get the same message through to a supply officer sweltering in a Quonset hut at a remote tropical base. ... At government facilities with access to high-speed Internet links, Starlight Networks Starlive client software runs the video, chat, and slide presentations on user desktops. At locations with slower connections, the DoD uses RealNetworks clients and a Web browser. ... Greg Tapper, an analyst with Giga Information Group, Santa Clara, Calif., said the Pentagons adoption of the technology shows that video on organizational intranets is creeping beyond the initial core of large, technology-savvy businesses.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Starlight Networks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 11:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Probable keep. Without delving into reliability of each individual source, trust Cunard's judgment. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Cunard has located sources to show notability. And the nominator has been careless in the nomination and WP:BEFORE Lightburst ( talk) 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Using Cunard's numbering above: 1 is good and meets the criteria for establishing notability; 2 fails WP:ORGIND as it is from a connected source (the ex-Chairman); 3 is also good and meets WP:NCORP. Since there are multiple sources I didn't check the rest. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Kaho Miyasaka. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 23:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Kiss in the Blue (  | 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 unsourced and a stub. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. lullabying ( talk) 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to author Article reads like a trailer or review. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to author. Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 01:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - stubs are okay, unsourced is not. Bearian ( talk) 20:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Middle-earth Lego sets (  | 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 product series. Lots of sources, but lots of fan sites, press releases, and Collider, which is not always of the greatest reliability. A lot of the article is just minutiae of who all is included in each sets. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. Hog Farm ( talk) 19:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The two sets/themes are already in List of Lego themes. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 ( talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 19:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Small group with Tolkien's Edain. The Edain were already redirected to another page based on a previous AfD. The page Edain was redirected to, Man (Middle-earth), does not mention The Wise, so it's not a good redirect or merger target. Not enough notability in the real world to warrant an article specifically for this topic. Hog Farm ( talk) 19:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. An obscure designation that apparently appears only in subsidiary works. Nearly all of the article isn't even about it. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Next step would be creating articles about each tree or rock mentioned in Tolkien books... fails GNG in an extreme fashion. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Don't temp the fancrufters. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete We do not need articles on every concept, idea, and unique use of a word in the works of Tolkien. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG in an extreme fashion. Kacper IV ( talk) 12:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. I would have redirected to Man (Middle-earth)#Edain, but is not mentioned even there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Gnophkeh (  | 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. TTN ( talk) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Don't see how this differs any from Voormis. Same sources, mostly. Possibly merge somewhere. Hyperbolick ( talk) 20:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete These creatures have never received any meaningful coverage from an academic or journalistic publication. ― Susmuffin  ^Talk 00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails GNG. Happily survives at https://lovecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Gnoph-keh -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails GNG. Content survives on fandom.com. Kacper IV ( talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, yet a bit more fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. WP:NACADEMIC #1 is the closest shot at notability, but his h-index sits at 12 per Google Scholar, with no meaningful results on Scopus. It is important to distinguish him from Alexander L. Strehl, who appears to be a different computer scientist. The subject's bio at University of Aalen differs substantially from information available on A.L. Strehl, and his PhD is from University of Texas, while A.L.'s is from Rutgers. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep based purely on that one paper. 4000 cites for what looks like a novel methodology description (not a review or a textbook) would seem to translate into "substantial impact on the field". Not enchanted with the essentially WP:BLP1E status and the original genesis as an autobio, but there you go. - Note: it's a bit weird that we would very likely make this a redirect to the BLP1E event/topic ( Consensus_clustering#Hard_ensemble_clustering) for an author, singer, celebrity etc., but we don't for academics. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The h-index is low for a computer scientist, but beyond that one paper there's another paper with nearly 1000, two more with over 100 (one single-authored), and two more with close to 100. I think it's enough for WP:PROF and spread out enough to avoid WP:BIO1E problems. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:NPROF#1 Lightburst ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Collins E. Ijoma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

inadequate references for living person, whose career shows no notability. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 18:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete the position he held is so minor, we are not even told where he held it, or when he held it. Both signs that he is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the only claim to notability can't be verified. I was a court administrator at the age of 23. So what? Bearian ( talk) 20:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - basically no independent reliable source coverage to demonstrate he meets WP:GNG or any other relevant standard of notability. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 07:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Appears to be a hoax. Miramar and Marine traffic returns no ship by this name ever. Google returns no results other than wikimirrors Lyndaship ( talk) 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Note I am guessing this article is about Xin Pu Yang (新埔洋) (yang meaning ocean), which at its 2010 launch was China's largest tanker ( [2]), although not any more it seems: [3]. ---- Pontificalibus 20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Pontificalibus 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Pontificalibus 21:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep'. Thank you to User:Pontificalibus for making sense of this situation. I gather it is one of the largest tankers belonging to China, so one of the largest in the world. User:Macaujacko provided a service by creating this article back in 2010, probably seeing extensive coverage at the time and seeing the clear notability/importance. Too bad they didn't add sources back then, but that is how things worked in Wikipedia then. And too bad it has not been further developed. Needs to be tagged and/or developed, not deleted. This is nearly an orphan, it is only linked in a "See also" from China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation article.

Obviously huge ships, oil tankers and other tankers, are important in the world, and there should be sensible coverage in Wikipedia. There is not currently sensible coverage, IMHO, because there is no overall development of a List of tankers and/or List of oil tankers, which would correspond to existing Category:Tankers and Category:Oil tankers but provide actual context. A list can/should provide sizes of the ships and year of construction/launch, and utilize overview sources about the set of tankers in the world, and it can/should include redlinks where there are gaps. Currently there is no presentation in Wikipedia about this one ship putting it into any context; a list-article is needed IMHO to provide context. And then perhaps a bunch of the smaller stub articles (and even this one possibly) could better be redirected to the list-article, actually, to provide information in context which delivers more value to a reader than info dereft of context. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename to Xin Pu Yang. I've added two sources. As the (former) largest oil tanker in China, and possibly the largest in the world, this ship is notable. - Zanhe ( talk) 04:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Nomination Withdrawn Thanks to User:Pontificalibus for excellent work Lyndaship ( talk) 07:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hélène Laverdure (  | 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:BLP of an archivist and curator, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test is the extent to which their work did or did not result in them receiving coverage about it in media. But that's not what any of the sources here are: one is a Q&A interview in a specialty trade magazine in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is not enough to make her notable all by itself if it's the best you can do; one is an article on the self-published blog of a directly affiliated organization, which is not an independent or reliable media source; one is a press release on the self-published website of her own employer, which is not an independent source (and merely mentions her name in the caption to a photograph without being about her in any non-trivial sense, to boot); and one is a press release from us, which mentions her name in the context of having given a speech at a Wikimania convention but isn't about her either, and isn't support for notability anyway as it represents a WP:CIRCULAR citation to ourselves. As always, it's not the things the article says that make a person notable enough for an article -- it's the quality and depth and independence of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says, but none of these are valid or notability-supporting sources. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete We really do want to avoid being self-referential. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are certainly independent, reliable sources that verify that she is the Director General of the BAnQ (eg [4], [5], [6], [7]) - note that I am not saying that they constitute SIGCOV, though. I have been trying to work out whether other archivists, about whom there are articles, are notable based on specific guidelines, or by virtue of being the head of national archives. Some certainly meet WP:ANYBIO (like Pierre-Georges Roy) or WP:NACADEMIC (like Sarah Tyacke). I can't see any achievements of Jeff James (public servant) that would meet notability guidelines besides being Chief Executive and Keeper of The National Archives (United Kingdom). Does that position count for WP:NACADEMIC#6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society."? If it does, then all directors of national archives would be notable - but would that also apply to directors of state archives? as, despite being called the Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, it is actually the archives of the province of Quebec. I think I would tend to say that the position of head of state or province-level archives does not give presumed notability (per WP:NACADEMIC#6 or anything else) - perhaps being head of a nation's national archives does, though that's not being decided here. So, in this case, I would say that she doesn't yet meet any notability guidelines. She may well do so in the future, if she becomes a fellow of a learned society, receives a high-level national award, etc - but for now, it seems WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Philips. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Philips Design (  | 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 main article on Philips already contains more quantity and quality of information on products and corporate structuring than this completely unsourced WP:PUFF article. Sources exist, but I don't believe they're enough to justify a separate article under WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The only coverage I'd call significant ( here) describes how product design helped to rejuvenate Philips, which would be more appropriately integrated into the main Philips article. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 16:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment No objection whatsoever to the relist (certainly some discussion should take place), but for clarity's sake, the source I mentioned above as a prospect for inclusion into the main Philips article is not currently included in the Philips Design article. Other merge-worthy material is already included in the main Philips article, as far as I can tell. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge whatever is appropriate to the primary Philips topic and then Delete. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 18:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Remote Telescope Markup Language (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Restored after being PROD deleted on the grounds that it is mentioned in a few telescope manuals, but I still can't find much more than that and material written by the language's creators. I remain unconviced that this is notable. Reyk _YO! 17:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It looks like this language has been discussed in detail in many reliable sources, including journal and news articles; not all are telescope manuals or from the creators. There's usable content for expansion about the language's history, structure, and current uses, so I'd say it passes WP:SIGCOV and merits a keep. ComplexRational ( talk) 03:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I have since added some sources. While the article may remain a stub, these sources seem to demonstrate notability (they are independent, detailed, and peer-reviewed). ComplexRational ( talk) 15:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep The sources added by ComplexRational show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and the ESA source describes RTML as a standard. The topic merits a keep per WP:HEY. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 10:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of sources discussing the usage rather than just using the phrase. RL0919 ( talk) 18:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Don't say we didn't tell it before (  | 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 thing that's not really a thing. Despite the weird title, talk page discussion has identified that it's really just a bad translation of a phrase more appropriately translated as "Don't say I/we didn't warn you" -- but that's a phrase that basically everybody on earth has heard from our own mothers at some point in our lives. This simply isn't a uniquely Chinese expression or concept — it's just the Chinese-language version of a phrase that exists in many languages, and always means "You're doing something dumb, stop it or you'll be sorry". Even in a political or diplomatic context, literally any government could potentially use its own language's version of "don't say we didn't warn you" as a war threat, so even that isn't a basis for claiming uniqueness here. And this article just lists four specific examples of the phrase being used, but fails to demonstrate a reason why the Chinese version of it would be more notable than its equivalent in any other language — it sources the fact that the phrase was used, but fails to source that there's been any analysis about the usage as a topic. And per WP:WAX, the fact that an article exists on the Chinese Wikipedia is not a reason why one automatically needs to exist in English too. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Don't Say We Didn't Warn You is an album. No article at Don't say we didn't warn you. Possible needs an article? Hyperbolick ( talk) 21:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Propose to rename as 'Don't Say We Didn't Warn You' or 'Don't Say We Didn't Warn You (Chinese Diplomatic Term)' GodCallMeGod ( talk) 17:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

GodCallMeGod is the creator of the contested article. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would like to emphasize that 勿谓言之不预也 is different from Don't say we didn't warn you as the Chinese term is not Mandarin, but classical Chinese. It has sources in Chinese literature. If you would like to express it mandarin Chinese (modern Chinese language today), it should be 别说我没警告过你. Different ways of expression implies different lingual atmosphere. Moreover, it is filled with a diplomatic meaning by Chinese Government. It deserves to be an article as of enough public concern, and the only issue is the right way of translation. GodCallMeGod ( talk) 17:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Its diplomatic meaning is no different in Chinese than it would be if the Canadian government used the English or French versions of the same phrase, if the American government used the English version, if the German government used the German equivalent, and on and so forth. It doesn't have special meaning in Chinese that's greater than its meaning in any other language. Bearcat ( talk) 01:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete for the reasons exemplarily denoted in the nomination. This would be, at best, a common expression in Chinese, undeserving of an independent Wikipedia article, since no verifiable evidence of its notability is brought forth; we only get evidence of its use, which is not unlike submitting evidence of the wide use of the definite article to support a separate entry for "the." But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - The Gnome ( talk) 15:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Everyclick (  | 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 of writing this site ranks #1,566,501 in global internet engagement according to Alexa Internet and references and press coverage seem thin on the ground and non-substantial. I do not believe it passes WP:COMPANY. Uhooep ( talk) 17:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, seeing nothing. Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Armies of Warhammer (  | 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 topic. Just a bare-bones game guide list. TTN ( talk) 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Effectively a List of different factions in Warhammer universe. This kind of list serves no purpose, and in either case will survive in articles on the universe itself and/or the related commercial products (games). Article fails GNG and LISTN. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION/LISTN. Kacper IV ( talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per ZXCVBNM above, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Old One in fiction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Collection of trivial, fictional, unconnected concepts that share a similar name. There's not even a shared theme, everything from gods to ancient aliens. It should be deleted and Old One probably be redirect to Lovecraft or turned into a dab page. TTN ( talk) 17:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete As you said, unconnected. It refers to any mention of the words "Old One" rather than specifically the beings of Lovecraft. It's therefore total WP:SYNTH and an unencyclopedic list of fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm amazed this article even exists. All that the entries have in common is the words "old one". JIP | Talk 17:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep as no reason exists for deletion. -- 131.123.51.67 ( talk) 17:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Sock of banned user reply
• Delete- Per zxcvbnm. This is badly sourced cruft with nothing to tie it together but a similarity of naming. Reyk _YO! 18:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is nothing but a collection of times the phrase "old one" was used in fiction, most of which being completely unrelated to one another. This is complete WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comments I turned the redirect Old One here into a dab page based on articles starting with "Old One". Also, a very similiar concept is explained at Elder race. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 20:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Sguerek's new dab page is quite sufficient. (I've retargeted Old Ones there.) Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete While Lovecraft was the most influential horror author since Poe, we do not need to list every single time a writer used the term "Old One". ― Susmuffin  ^Talk 23:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Wiktionary concept at best. No evidence this term has been analyzed by scholars of literature or such. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The usual fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION. Kacper IV ( talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Adeerus Ghayan (  | 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:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for writers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted (A7). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 07:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, I can't find any independent or reliable sources. Andrew Base ( talk) 16:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base ( talk) 16:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 16:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 16:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete no reliable sources in the article at all. No evidence of notability. Fails the requirements of WP:BLP. Borderline WP:CSD#A7. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 16:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A WP:BEFORE in en web could not find anything indicate subject pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST for no notable achievements and no any significant influence in film editing, graphic design in any known any new concept. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 16:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is just more vanity spam. Should have been A7'd. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete (A7): Previously rejected at AfC but loaded to mainspace. No references, just images uploaded by the subject to DeviantArt, which are completely inadequate for basic WP:BLP requirements. Wikipedia is not a place for people to spam their portfolio. No claim to notability, no WP:RS provided or found to indicate notability by WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. (I am also tagging for CSD A7.) AllyD ( talk) 19:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per A7. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Outer Limits episodes. A transwiki can be done at editorial discretion; the proposed target is not part of Wikimedia so we can't apply a consensus from here to there. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Dark Matters (The Outer Limits) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Like the vast majority of Outer Limits (1995) episodes, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and doesn't establish WP:N, and has been tagged as such for over a decade. My previous attempts to batch-redirect such articles to the LoE were contentious (see Talk:List_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes from 2008), and ended with my large-scale un-redirecting all episode articles. Now, I'd like to revisit this issue and again batch-redirect all of them, but I want/need a cite-worthy AfD result for the edit summary to make the redirects stick (unless, of course, individual notability is/gets established). – sgeureka ^{t• c} 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect unless notability can be established. Fails GNG. TTN ( talk) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Transwiki to the red link at https://theouterlimits.fandom.com/wiki/Seasons_(1995-2002) , then redirect. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as per nom and TTN. Piotrus' solution is also fine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 ( talk) 19:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Inside Out Films (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a production company that has had one joint-production, notable documentary. Based on my WP:BEFORE, I cannot find any reliable sources with independant, significant coverage taht shows that the production company is notable.

Of the sources:

• 1 is an interview which doesn't mention the company, only the founder.
• 2 & 4 doesn't mention the company, nor the founder.
• 3 & 12 are repeated and only mentions the founder, not the company
• 5 & 6 will not let me look at them
• 7 is a short bio about the founder, no mention of the company
• 8 & 10 only mentions founder, no mention of the company
• 9 is a directory listing
• 11 is the only reference that talks about the company, however it is only two sentences.

Notability is not inherited. The film, Forever Pure, may be notable. The founder, Geoff Arbourne may be notable (I have not done any research into that claim). However, I do not believe Inside Out Films is notable. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Dagaba's article lacks notability. He has been a candidate for parliament and mayor and an eventual MMC (Member of the Mayoral Committee) for Finance. All these positions do not necessarily guarantee him an article, therefore it fails WP:POLITICIAN & WP:GNG. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. While Joburg is obviously a large and important enough city that we would likely accept articles about its actual city councillors, simply serving on a municipal committee is not sufficient to pass NPOL. Of the 54 footnotes here, he's the bylined author of 16 of them that I've noticed so far — so that's 30 per cent of the sourcing kicked to the curb right there. (He's also likely the author of some of the others, because at least two other sources I've spotchecked are "letters to the editor" that are written in the first person, but fail to have mentioned the name "Rabelani Dagada" before they paywall me.) Several more are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his faculty profile on the self-published website of a university he works for. Several others glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him in any non-trivial way. This is reference bombing, and we do not take kindly to it — the number of sources here which are actually about him, for the purposes of establishing that he would pass WP:GNG, are (a) literally in the single digits, and (b) purely local and routine and not even beginning to demonstrate a credibly nationalized or globalized claim of importance. Plus the article was created by a WP:SPA with no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic but Rabelani Dagada himself — so this has all the classic hallmarks of being self-promotion even if I can't prove that outright. Bearcat ( talk) 03:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per multiple CSD rationales as pointed out below. Eagles  24/7  (C) 16:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Bronze Rhombus of Hate (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Failed PROD. Article is not properly cited and there are no outside reliable sources supporting such a distinction. Barkeep ^Chat 14:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Barkeep ^Chat 14:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete This appears to be an WP:A11 and/or WP:G3. Two different web searches brought up only the Wikipedia page. SportingFlyer T· C 15:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete I concur. A clear speedy under A11 and/or G3.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. This is a WP:HOAX. Cbl62 ( talk) 16:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Mr. Magoo (TV series). Stuff may be merged over at editorial discretion, as it's not clear in this discussion whether we have a consensus for a plain merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Mr. Cat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unlikly this article reaches the criteria for notability; it would likely be better off in the "Characters" section of Mr. Magoo. CoconutOctopus talk 12:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge I never knew Mr Magoo had a cat. I think it is not sufficiently notable for it's own article. A merge into Mr. Magoo would be ideal. I notice his dog, as being present, has only one sentence to describe him. scope_creep ^Talk 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete can't find any evidence that the cat is independently notable, and there is little more in this article that isn't in Mr. Magoo (TV series). Incidentally, I think that article should be moved to Mr. Magoo (2019 TV series) and Mr. Magoo (TV series) either DABbed or redirected to Mister Magoo, as the 1960s series is more likely what people expect to see with that title. Spike 'em ( talk) 13:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Overly vague name, no notability. Fails GNG. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 14:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge with and redirect to Mr. Magoo'. The article on the cat is only a brief one and it probably belongs in the Mr. Magoo article. Vorbee ( talk) 15:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Ribon Original (  | 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 Wikipedia:Notability, basically NO sources, it even says it was cancelled to poor sales, showing its IRRELEVANCY Palmer Clive Alive ( talk) 12:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

NOT notable, as evidenced by barely ANY sources Palmer Clive Alive ( talk) 12:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Super Jump is NOT notable as evidenced by the almost complete lack of sources Palmer Clive Alive ( talk) 12:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Also its made by User:Jump Guru so this is WP:COI and WP:Paid editing Palmer Clive Alive ( talk) 12:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#4, nominated by a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hobby's Jump (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not even a SHRED of notability, laughably WP:UNSOURCED Palmer Clive Alive ( talk) 12:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Also its made by User:Jump Guru so this is WP:COI and WP:Paid editing Palmer Clive Alive ( talk) 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Any decision to rename this article may happen through the normal process. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

1990 album. Lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources and does not meet NALBUM. Author contested PROD and added sources. Here is my analysis of the sources in the current version:

1. artist's website
2. looks like a SPS, not RS
3. interview with the artist
4. may be significant coverage, but is a dead link
5. brief mention, not SIGCOV
6. one-man website/blog, not RS

Before I PRODed this, I looked on Google Books and could only find trivial mentions. So, at best one source that would count towards establishing notability.

If not deleted outright, it should be redirected to the artist. b uidh e 04:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have updated the Allmusic album review to its current location (item 4 in the analysis above). AllyD ( talk) 09:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Updated: with probably the google books reference you alluded to, he did call it a "notable record" if you cared to look DISEman ( talk) 11:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep: In the analysis above, the nominator acknowledged that Brian Olewnick's Allmusic review could be significant coverage: I think it is. The album also received a (lukewarm) review by Tony Herrington in The Wire (issue 76, pages 53 & 55) and also appears to feature in the same magazine's Albums of the Year for 1990 (in issue 82/3) though my access to my copy to check what was said there has been thwarted by my just-pile-em-high filing system. Add to these the Christgau brief-mention and the Giddens review identified by DISEman and I think there is sufficient for WP:NALBUM criterion 1. AllyD ( talk) 12:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • OK, so we have only two sources that potentially give significant coverage: the one-paragraph review from Allmusic (not sure if that counts as significant) and the Wire review. Calling something "notable" is not a substitute for significant coverage, and two sources are usually not enough to keep an article. b uidh e 20:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• It was a third critical source, the Gary Giddons article which DISEman added since your nomination, which describes it "a notable record". AllyD ( talk) 22:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• I have no opinion as to whether this should be kept or deleted, but if it is to be kept it should be under the title Rootless Cosmopolitans (Marc Ribot album) and the current title should be redirected to Rootless cosmopolitan, which is surely the primary meaning that a reader is more likely to be looking for. Phil Bridger ( talk) 11:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Yes indeed. When I first saw this item in the AfD index I assumed it to be one of those Wiktionary vs Wikipedia debates for an article on the political term. I was surprised to find an album as the primary use. Not something to change during an AfD but if the article survives it should be given a more specific title as Phil Bridger suggests. AllyD ( talk) 15:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've added part of a review from The Penguin Guide to Jazz. That and the AllMusic review are enough in themselves to meet WP:NALBUM criterion 1. (On the title, 'Rootless cosmopolitans' redirects to 'Rootless cosmopolitan'; use of the capital 'C' is required to get to the album. That seems reasonable.) EddieHugh ( talk) 22:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to 2012 United States Senate election in Tennessee. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Mark E. Clayton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Most likely fails wp:POLITICIAN and wp:POLOUTCOMES. Subject hasn't even held office; only major instances of received coverage are unsuccessfully running for US senate in 2012 and unsuccessfully suing the Tennessee Democratic Party for not allowing him to run for governor. Would suggest a redirect to 2012 United States Senate election in Tennessee Bneu2013 ( talk) 11:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Also of note is that this article has been nominated for deletion before (when the article was under a different name). Bneu2013 ( talk) 11:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect per nom. No evidence of having done anything else that achieved any note - David Gerard ( talk) 12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as Clayton has only ever been a candidate and has not held national or sub-national political offices. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 15:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I have to admit I am sick and tired of the SPLC being treated as a reliable source, when it throws around the label of "hate" on anyone who it disagrees with, with no regard to the general understanding that hate groups encourage actual violence. Having your own party turn against you after you get the nomination is not a sign of notability, it is a one time news event, and not enough to make you notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Johnpacklambert - I had no idea this would come up here, but, just in case you are interested, there is currently a discussion about whether or not SPLC is a reliable source. Bneu2013 ( talk) 23:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm not terribly convinced that quibbling over the definition of hate speech is the determinative issue here — queers get the final mic drop on what is or isn't anti-queer hate speech, and non-queers do not get to put us in the corner on the grounds that they somehow understand what we actually have to go through better than we do ourselves. But that's not really the determining factor: what's more dispositive here, rather, is that the sources show little evidence of enduring nationalized significance that would somehow make his candidacy more special than all the other unsuccessful candidacies in the history of politics. Out of fourteen sources total, eight are the purely expected level of local coverage that every candidate in every election can always show without fail, two more are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left is not enough to demonstrate that he would pass the ten-year test for enduring notability. This is just not, in and of itself, enough. Bearcat ( talk) 03:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for federal office. In general, basic (and reliably-sourced) information about the candidates can be included in a page about the election. In addition, and generally speaking, an individual must meet WP:GNG outside of their campaign or receive national or international coverage that is significantly greater than normal (see Christine O'Donnell). -- Enos733 ( talk) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Looks like a garden variety WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES/ WP:NORG failure. Start up with coverage limited to in-passing, or press releases and their rewrites. Some unnotable awards, few mentions in list and WP:ROUTINE coverage of 'start seeks funding/startup gets funding, wants more/company does business'. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep as this is a travel website that is quite notable with sufficient coverage. Needs expanding on sources but definitely not deletion. WikiAviator ( talk) 11:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Said coverage is all reprinted/rewritten press releases. Even this piece in The Guardian is, if you actually read it, not very impressive. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails NCORP. Corporate spam. WP:TNT at best. Kacper IV ( talk) 09:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - G11 material - David Gerard ( talk) 13:21, 2 December 2019 (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 ⁺⁺ 20:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 01:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Unsourced since creation in Sept 2017. A previous article was deleted by PROD in March2017, then this was re-created by apparently the same editor, and has not been improved since then. An "external link" to http://www.kalungady.com was recently added and removed but appears to be "Tamil Christian site", not a reliable source or an appropriate external link. This place is shown on maps as existing, but without further sourced information the article is not an asset to the encyclopedia. The Catherine Booth Hospital makes no mention of Kalungady: its own website says it is at "Vadasery, Nagercoil". Pam D 08:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Further to nomination:

1. Catherine Booth Hospital website giving address as "Asambu road, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu", nomention of Kalungady.
2. Kalungady is not mentioned in any other article in the encyclopedia to which this name could be redirected. Pam D 08:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". My search shows it mentioned in a book about missionary activities in this area, in in Indian census records (but not as a census tract), in an Indian government gazette, and in a list of monuments. FOARP ( talk) 09:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - although I thank FOARP for finding the above refs, none of them indicate what type of location this is. Doesn't appear to be a legally recognized place, but rather some type of congregation or monument. Certainly none of the claims in the article are supported. As I was back in 2017, am completely willing to change to a keep if some valid sourcing showing that it passes WP:GEOLAND is uncovered, but as of yet, I'm not seeing it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The gazette and census entries show legal recognition, hence this remains a pass for WP:GEOLAND. The present state of the article is not decisive of deletion as AFD is not clean-up. FOARP ( talk) 11:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

No, they show it in use as part of an address, in both cases: the census lists "Kalungady West 1-33A" alongside "Arat Road 69-74". No indication that it is a standalone place. Pam D 08:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Currently appears to be a suburb of Nagercoil. May once have been a village in its own right, of course. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment If this orphan article is deleted now it can be re-created in future if Reliable sources are found which confirm its existence as a populated place and any other information about it. Pam D 08:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete- Still no indication of what exactly this locality is. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is a WP:GEOLAND fail. Not legally recognized and no reliable sources. Wm335td ( talk) 21:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The Census of India produces no results for a search of both Kalungady and the alternate spelling Kalunkady. I can't direct-link the results because of how their website works, but you can search for yourself here: Census of India search. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion seems to have started going round in circles here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Nominating this for deletion due to the subject matter not being notable by himself. Also the reference used for the article is from a unreliable source according to the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I fixed the link and it is to IGN now, which is a reliable source for gaming news. And being the founder of Simtex is definitely notable. Bluedude588 ( talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The IGN link still cites N-Sider, which makes the link an unreliable source. GamerPro64 15:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not sure if you understand how sourcing works. That article sourced direct interviews with relevant people. IGN is not going to publish incorrect information. Flag this article as needing more sources if you must, but this is definitely not delete worthy. Bluedude588 ( talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
      • There is actual consensus with the Video Game Project to not use these types of articles. All the way back in 2011. GamerPro64 17:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
        • Well I disagree with outright banning a whole news source. Its not hard to look at the article itself and evaluate it for what it is. And regardless, I just added another source to the page, which actually only added to the notability of the subject. He apparently was in charge of the development of Metroid Prime. Since both your notability and reliability claim have been addressed, I am removing the flag for deletion. Bluedude588 ( talk) 18:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
          • That's not how this works at all. Once the discussion is closed, and if the article is kept THEN it can be removed. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
            • Sorry I did not realize that. After doing some more reading on the process I am going to suggest for a speedy keep of the article and for the nominator to withdraw their deletion request. Bluedude588 ( talk) 18:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
              • I would much rather get a consensus on whether this should stay up or get deleted. GamerPro64 19:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
                • You might want to edit your reason why then, as what you have there currently is incorrect. You have to justify why it is still up for deletion with the new changes taken into account. Bluedude588 ( talk) 19:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
                  • The source in question is no longer used in the article. I've added six sources to the article now, two of which directly replace the spot where the questionable one was located. So since both the notability and reliability concerns have been completely addressed, I believe that the original complaints around this article are now invalid. I am officially switching my vote to Speedy Keep on this one. Bluedude588 ( talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC) reply
                    • What are the six sources? It would help determine if the article should be kept if we know if the new sources are reliable or not.-- 69.157.252.96 ( talk) 05:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply
                      • There is an article from Polygon, two from Gamespot, one from IGN, and one from Business Wire. Also through in a published book. Bluedude588 ( talk) 07:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Still Keep Confused why this has been relisted. It's pretty obviously notable. Bluedude588 ( talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC) STRIKING 2ND !VOTE. Britishfinance ( talk) 14:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete the company may be notable but he is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Five sources directly related to the guy isn't enough to make him notable? You gotta support your argument there a bit. Bluedude588 ( talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Peter Fox (Welsh politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he's a council leader and has an OBE, but neither of those grant notability. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and just in local newspapers -- fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Individual is a non-notable local politician. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 15:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, on the basis he's not a run-of-the-mill local politician, having been the leader of a major local government authority for over 10 years and has been awarded an OBE for his services to local government. He would certainly meet point 2 of N:POL, even having a TV documentary crew following him around. Sionk ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• An OBE is a higher honour than I have ever received, but consensus has been pretty clear that this is a lower level than that required to pass WP:ANYBIO. A CBE is debatable but usually enough to pass, and a K/DBE is certainly enough, but not lower-level honours such as OBE and MBE. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. County council is not an automatic free pass to notability in the absence of evidence that he's special in some way — passing the "major local political figures" test requires a lot more than just a small handful of hits of purely routine local coverage. The article does not actually note or source that he's had "a TV documentary crew following him around"; that could maybe change the equation if the documentary were significant in some way, but isn't a guaranteed free pass just because you assert it, because even documentaries are sometimes unimportant and non-notable under our notability criteria for films. (Plus, until you name and source the existence of the documentary, we have no way of verifying whether it was about him, or just asked him a couple of questions as a speaker in a film about something else.) And as for the OBE, well, we don't have any consensus that low-level honours constitute an exemption from having to pass regular notability and sourcing standards either. Bearcat ( talk) 03:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. We do have consensus that OBEs don't make people notable. ミラ P 05:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. County council not a notable position. And Bearcat has articulated the deletion rationale well. Wm335td ( talk) 21:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 10:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or GNG. Deprodded by User:Paora with "has toured nationally, e.g. in NZ with NZ Opera and in UK with Glyndebourne on Tour" but is this sufficient? I don't think so, MUSICBIO suggests subject needs to receive significant coverage of such tours, and this is missing here. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I have expanded, updated, and re-referenced the article with reviews of her performances. However, this is a rather borderline case. Normally, for opera singers we consider two or more performances in major roles with leading opera companies to be sufficient. But in this case, she has smaller roles with a leading company ( The Royal Opera), and leading roles with a variety of 2nd-tier companies, e.g. Opera Holland Park, New Zealand Opera, Toulouse Opera, etc. Singing with Glyndebourne on Tour does not have quite the same status as appearing on the main stage during the official Glyndebourne Festival. She appears to be no longer very active as an opera singer. I cannot find any performances since about 2013. On her LinkedIn page, she describes herself as a "Freelance Opera Singer/Singing teacher". See also her entry at Operabase. It's empty. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Voceditenore: Kudos indeed for expanding this and the informed analysis. Is there any place this could be plausibly merged to and redirected per WP:PRESERVE (and keeping in mind WP:TOOSOON)? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Piotrus: With the further additions by OrestesLebt, especially the recordings, I've decided to !vote "Keep" (see below). In any case there would be no plausible target to merge this to. It's also not really a case of too soon. She had an eleven-year career, and ended up singing leading roles internationally. So I've come off the fence. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - She fails both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Kudos to Voceditenore for your work improving the article, you have done it so significantly. However, it didn't change the fact that she is not noted at all, she is basically a beginner in opera world. The only one that I see as noted (not so ..) was her role as Pamina in The Magic Flute with Glyndebourne. I hate to vote "delete" but let see what others think about it first - Jay ( talk) 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment According to her biography on the [ ROH website] she sang several leading roles in at least five countries. In my opinion, this is notable, if the productions can be identified. -- OrestesLebt ( talk) 01:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I added three recordings with notable orchestras and conductors. One is of the rare opera Ariane et Barbe-bleue, one from a small role in Parsifal, but at The Proms, the third, I quatro rusteghi was the critic's choice in Opera News. For me, that tips the scale in favor of keeping. -- OrestesLebt ( talk) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Thanks for that OrestesLebt, plus your addition of the performance as Konstanze with the Brazilian Symphony Orchestra. I've added a 4th recording, the DVD of The Marriage of Figaro at the ROH (Critics' Choice at Gramophone). That's enough to tip the scale. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep based on revisions made by OrestesLebt and Voceditenore - Jay ( talk) 05:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sufficient work has been done to the article to merit notability. scope_creep ^Talk 15:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of extra references to show that she passes notability for opera singers, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC) reply