Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 September 25 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Gamma Theta Phi

Gamma Theta Phi (  | 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 fraternity with no claim to significance nor achieving any level of notability. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:14, 25 September 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. Based on the discussion here, it seems like none of the sources on offer satisfy the WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Swingtips

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

Contrary to claim, band wasn't part of swing revival. Can't find them in any of my sources (books) or online. Not notable, not enough sources exist for an article of substance. Orphaned article for almost ten years. Vmavanti ( talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I think this article should remain as it is but with a few added corroborated links and citations as it is all factually correct and can be verified. You didn't do your research, and yes these links may not be in the article already, however, they verify information in the article marked as "citation needed." It is a blind, bold statement to claim that The Swingtips weren't part of the swing revival, as there are many sources here (some biased) as well as music compilations that show the importance of The Swingtips. Can we please keep this civil and not jump to conclusions? This has already jumped to a bad start and I thank you for bringing up the uttermost importance of more citations so that interested individuals may find more information if they feel it necessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simitar_Entertainment

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing/release/2222015

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing-Volume-2/release/5489381

https://books.google.com/books?id=6TZCAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEILzAB

https://books.google.com/books?id=Sbo_4eR-1xEC&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEIMzAC#v=snippet&q=%22Swingtips%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=_qc4AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7o7z96-rkAhXFN30KHVffBx84ChDoATAAegQIARAD

https://books.google.com/books?id=GkhGAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik7aql7OrkAhU0On0KHUV2DqA4ChDoATADegQIARAS

https://www.discogs.com/ko/Various-A-Jazzed-Up-Holiday-Volume-2/release/6626971

http://www.davidthomasroberts.com/music/cd-compilations/diamond-cuts-turning-two

https://www.amazon.com/Swingin-Christmas-Various-Artists/dp/B00000DCU9

https://books.google.com/books?id=EQoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=swinging+christmas+royalty+records&source=bl&ots=JZHIvX9xUy&sig=ACfU3U3SqLphczvwIE9haIT2yrwy0UPKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1vsyu-OrkAhVsFzQIHWVoAAIQ6AEwFXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=swinging%20christmas%20royalty%20records&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakiemon ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, No reliable sources to speak of. Half of the sources in the article are just refs supporting appearances of their songs in media, while other ones seem to indicate . The sources provided by Blakiemon do little to help; Discogs is user generated and can't be used to establish notability, and even then, just because a band was featured on a few compalations doesn't make them notable. As for the google books, all of them sans the billboard one appear to be passing mentions, and are thus not usable. The billboard one seems to be talking about a compilation, which again does not establish notability. As for the last two, the DavidThomasroberts link is just about a compilation and that's it, while the amazon is one is the same thing. It exists, but there's little coverage on them beyond that. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Their Christmas album was reviewed in the article Seasonal CDs: The good, the bad, the ... eccentric.(VARIETY)(Review); Bream, Jon ; Surowicz, Tom; Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), Dec 8, 1998, p.01E. Other than that, I mainly just found promotional material. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, just some brief mentions here and there which is not enough to fulfill the WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. It's approaching the threshold, but ultimately there just isn't enough independent coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The fact that HHelvis's comment and the IP's comment were posted a few minutes apart is additional evidence of socking. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Paybis

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

Despite the refbombing, it doesn't appear to meet GNG - the vast majority of the sources aren't reliable sources (largely blogs, with the occasional press release), and several don't even mention Paybis (they're more justifying things like "are people buying Bitcoin," which isn't relevant to the article) or are entirely unrelated to the article. I don't see any sources which look reliable. The claim to notability ("considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchanges in the Baltics") is entirely unsupported by the references. Article looks to me like undisclosed promotion/COI. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

https://cointelegraph.com/news/paybis-e-currency-and-bitcoin-exchange-planning-expansion https://www.ccn.com/paybis-leaps-towards-worldwide-crypto-adoption-by-translating-its-website-into-5-new-languages/ https://bitcoinist.com/paybis-buying-bitcoin-credit-cards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.173.185 ( talk) 08:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • keep: Page is thorough when it comes to its resources. As a cryptocurrency exchange, it makes sense that most of its resources come from authorative blockchain websites. On top of that, the second sentence of the first paragraph ("The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading and is considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchange in the Baltics.[1][2][3][4][5]”) should be updated to better match the references. This would be a more fitting sentence - “The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading.[1][2][3][4][5]”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HHelvis ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Michael Ridley

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

Cannot find any significant coverage by secondary reliable sources for WP:GNG (the article in The Independent was written by him and therefore primary), nor evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Note that being a FRAS is not in the same line as WP:NACADEMIC point 3 (particularly since they began taking student fellows). — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Mostly as being a Fellow of the RAS. My understanding is that this did count for rather more at one time, before the somewhat mercenary appearance it has now. I've heard his name mostly in relation to celadon glazes. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Right, but its reliability as being "highly selective" is no longer there so it cannot be used alone for notability now. However, if someone received it when it did mean more in the past, there are probably other indicators of notability (such as the WP:NAUTHOR discussion in the other comments). — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR, as multiple reviews of The Art of World Religions — Buddhism and The Megalithic Art of the Maltese Islands have been found and added to the article, as well as reviews of his other books (not that the reviews are always very complimentary, as David Eppstein noted in an edit summary). One review states that he was also a fellow of two other societies, so I have added that info as well. He may, on that basis, meet WP:NACADEMIC#3, though it would be good to have other evidence that he is/was a fellow of those societies. I found a few other sources which I haven't added, one saying that he was curator of Weymouth and Portland Museums in 1982 [1]; one a scan of an excavation report on The Iron Age Settlement, East Cliff, Bournemouth [2]; he was co-author of Bournemouth Then and Now [3]; and an article in the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletter #28 (possibly 1991?) about two strange exhibitions in Bournemouth put on by a Dr Michael Ridley ... [4]. I haven't found any information on where Ridley studied, however, which would be useful information for the bio of a scholar. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Four published reviews for two different books (as listed now in the article) meets my minimum threshold for this criterion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above comments on meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Polyamorph ( talk) 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply


Luqman Hakim Shamsudin

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

After initially putting it up to WP:PROD before it got removed, I am putting it up to Afd as the player hasn't played in an WP:FPL match despite being in a team which is eligible for this. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: you can get notable young players who never make it, the classic example is Sonny Pike. Giant Snowman 10:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
@ GiantSnowman: Yes, but Luqman didn't sign for Ajax at seven years of age. He's just a youth international who signed for a European team, who's not even listed in their first team. The Caoimhin Kelleher comparison is courageously false, as Kelleher was named on a team playing in the most prestigious club match of the year, has received wide international coverage in spite of his lack of an appearance, and has gone onto play for Liverpool if only in the EFL Cup, whereas Luqman is just... a youth player who signed for a Belgian team. All of the coverage is recent and he likely fails WP:BLP1E at this point. SportingFlyer T· C 02:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
That's all your personal opinion, though. "just a youth international who signed for a European team" (which is what Sonny Pike literally did do, btw...) to you, perhaps, but it's (evidently) a big event to Malaysians and arguably Belgian people of interest. "All of the coverage is recent", well he is 17? What do you want, pieces on what happened on his first day at school? Joking aside, I believe your opinions are just that. Also, I wasn't even directly comparing this AfD to the Kelleher one, though you could (I wouldn't) even argue the UCL stuff was (at time of AfD) BLP1E; also, saying "has gone onto..." isn't fair or relevant, as we can't predict the future at AfDs. R96Skinner ( talk) 03:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The recent coverage directly contradicts WP:NOTNEWS, though. I'm not looking for pieces from his first day of school, I'm looking for sustained coverage of him as a professional footballer, which hasn't happened yet because he's not even signing until March 2020. No one here has shown there's any sort of lasting notability which would pass the WP:10Y test - it's also WP:TOOSOON. We do not typically keep players who fail WP:NFOOTY unless they clearly get beyond WP:GNG, and especially not youth players - I still don't see any reason why we would be making an exception for him. SportingFlyer T· C 05:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Evidently, as seen at AfD plenty of times, NFOOTY is, not that I agree, practically worthless - it's all about GNG, which is always arguable; that's why I'd say SNGs are a better way to go, because at least it's a consistent notability line which leaves no, or little to no, questions. The fact (I missed that, good spot!) he doesn't join until 2020, in my opinion, emphasises how notable this player is - this much coverage for something that is a while away from happening, clearly high interest. Even away from the Kortrijk stuff, Luqman is/was still getting attention: [15], [16], [17], [18]. R96Skinner ( talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
WP:NFOOTY actually isn't useless. Per User:Levivich/NFooty_AfDs#No_NFooty, if you don't meet WP:NFOOTY, you're almost certainly getting deleted, though I agree many of those don't have sources presented. With regards to the final four sources you've just presented, see WP:YOUNGATH - they're all game/routine coverage of a youth player. SportingFlyer T· C 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply
I can see we aren't going to agree here, which isn't a problem - this is what AfDs are for I guess. Happy editing! R96Skinner ( talk) 17:49, 1 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty (  | 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:ORG, and I am not seeing evidence of notability separate from the parent institution. The sole non-primary ref in the article [19], a news story from Guardian, does not mention the institute at all. Nothing of substance in GNews, GBooks and GScholar searches. The page was prodded and deprodded twice since its creation in June 2019. In the current state the article is pretty promotional and WP:ORish. Already had to be revel-ed once, due to copyvio issues. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:10, 25 September 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. There's a fair amount of agreement here that the title should be repurposed as some other type of navigation aid, but the page as is should be kept, if for no other reason than to maintain the attribution history. Any ideas for reworking the page can be worked out on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of LGBT-related films

List of LGBT-related 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)

List that has outlived its usefulness and been supplanted by other, more specific lists, for a subject that has become far too large to be maintainable in this one-stop format anymore. Just to be clear in case anybody misunderstands, I am not proposing that we do away with all lists of LGBT-related films; we already have many other more specific lists by year which should absolutely be kept, and I just don't think we need to keep a massive A-Z master list alongside them anymore.
When this was first created in 2003, there were a lot fewer LGBT-related films to list at all -- the original version literally had only around 100 films in it total. But with the sheer explosion in the visibility and sourceability and mainstreaming of LGBT-themed films in the intervening 16 years, we now have over 3,000 articles about LGBT-related films before you even take into account the considerable number of LGBT-themed films that are currently still redlinks, and the literally unfathomable number of LGBT-themed films still to come in the future. So in 2012, we started a comprehensive set of LGBT-related films subgrouped by year of release, which is highly developed and very well-maintained -- and with those lists in place, the value in trying to maintain a comprehensive A-Z master list alongside them is significantly reduced.
The sheer number of LGBT-related films that need to be listed now also poses a serious maintainability problem -- films frequently get added to the by-year lists without being added here, and the sheer number of films involved makes it virtually impossible to actually undertake any serious effort to get all the missing films added here anymore. And, by comparison, if a country has "List of [Country] films of [Year]" lists in place, then we just use "List of [Country] films" as an index of links to the year lists and not as a redundant master list of all the films that are already in the sublists -- and the sheer scope of this topic means we should treat it like a "country" in that sense.
TLDR, I believe this "comprehensive" master list has outlived its usefulness. We should just delete it, move List of LGBT-related films by year overtop the redlink, and let the by-year lists stand on their own from now on instead of trying to compile a reduplicated master list alongside them. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 09:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Repurposing this title as the move destination of one of the other lists is exactly what I proposed. The discussion is fundamentally about whether there's any value in maintaining a massive A-Z master list alongside the other lists anymore, so AFD is the appropriate venue for that discussion — but deletion of this list would not preclude reusing the title for a different purpose, because deletion never precludes redirection or repurposing of its title to cover something else. So the ability to repurpose the title into something else is not a reason why we would need to retain the content of this list in its existing form, which is what a keep result would mandate. Bearcat ( talk) 16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Your proposal is to move List of LGBT-related films by year to this space, however, List of LGBT-related films by year (which has multiple lists) is not the same as List of LGBT-related films (single list), it is in fact more Lists of LGBT-related films. This is something that should simply be a move that can be proposed in its talk page, discuss, move then adjust the content. Much simpler and less likely to result in unnecessary mistakes. Hzh ( talk) 19:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Bearcat, the goal is to preserve the attribution history. I agree that we don't need a list, but I do not agree that we need to explicitly delete the list as it never existed. The history of this goes back to 2003. The list now persists in more specific forms, and it has not been proven that these forms have never relied on the original list. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The matter of whether the by-year lists ever relied on this list or not is completely impossible to prove or disprove in either direction — how, exactly, is anybody supposed to prove anything either way about whether the year lists were compiled by pulling films directly from this list, or from the same outside sources that were used to build this list? And secondly, as of the time that the year lists started getting spun out, the list was half as long or less as it is now — so by far the largest group of involved films were (a) added to both the year set and this list concurrently, (b) added to the year set first and then added here later, or (c) added to the year lists and never actually added here at all, and thus never relied on the existence of this list as their source. And even for the far smaller number of films that were already in this list before the by-year lists got spun out, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on external sources, or on this master list per se, is not my responsibility to prove. And precisely because external sources do exist for the classification, and we're supposed to be relying on those outside sources rather than self-citing ourselves in violation of WP:CIRCULAR, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on this list or on the external sources isn't even an important consideration at all. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Like I said, I agree with converting this into a "lists" article. I don't understand why you want to delete the entire page history. Look at list of science fiction films. It redirects to lists of science fiction films, and we can see the oldest edits going back to 2001. That's what I favor. Not the outright deletion of the original topic editing, which was completely valid and likely spun off into the specific lists. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Here is an example of the need to preserve copyright. Editor Dev920 began "splitting list" on July 31, 2007 with List of LGBT-related films and List of LGBT-related films by year. Later, in August 2012, editor Lugnuts split that (and contributions in between) out into individual years here. The page history of the original list should be preserved. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 16:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Just a note that if you bold the word "delete", it would look like you are choosing to delete the article, which is in fact what's recorded in your AfD stats. Bold either keep or delete. Hzh ( talk) 17:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks, I changed it from bold to underline. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 18:11, 30 September 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) 19:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Japanese terms mistaken for gairaigo

List of Japanese terms mistaken for gairaigo (  | 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 topic of this article is incoherent: by whom is the mistake supposed to be made? It is almost completely unreferenced; fails notability, because there is no evidence of a literature on the topic of this ragbag of mistakes. Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Followup by proposer: This article is >10 years old, and has collected seven entries in the list:

  • arigatou: This in itself is perhaps notable, because yes, it is a famous bogus etymology. I can't believe that any native Japanese speaker would imagine this to be a loan word -- it is not written in katakana.
  • baba: This is probably a general phenomenon that there are very similar words across almost all languages.
  • chakku: This might indeed be thought by native speakers to be a loan word, but isn't.
  • chari: Nobody seems to know where this came from.
  • emoji: This is a recent import into English. No native speaker would imagine it was a loan into Japanese (of course moji came from Chinese originally).
  • garou: A very strained story... unreferenced.
  • neta: Yes, many Japanese speakers might not know its origin; it's written in katakana.

@ T.c.w7468: The latest entry (emoji) is obviously good faith. But it really has no coherent connection to the other entries. I contemplated deleting it, but it is so unclear what the topic is supposed to be that it seems unfair to privilege the other entries above it. I can't see quite what the reference says, but it appears just to mention that this is unrelated to "emoticon". True, but not notable.

I would guess that anything up to 10% of the entire vocabulary of Japanese (or any other language!) would have faintly plausible mistaken guesses as to its meaning. I suggest that trying to collect a comprehensive list is therefore not encyclopedic. Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: (I hope I'm formatting this correctly) I suppose what you are saying makes sense. I added the entry for emoji because I thought that the article was for a list for words mistaken for gairaigo in general, as opposed to ones being commonly mistaken specifically by Japanese people. The reference was taken from other Wikipedia articles referencing the fact that the two aren't related, and was meant to demonstrate that the statement was true, which at the time of editing I thought was sufficient for this article. Perhaps it was bad practice on my part. I do not feel confident enough in my understanding of Wikipedia's policy to form an opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted, though I think you do have a good case. I'm just writing this in case my (flawed) thought process behind the edit becomes useful for further discussion. T.c.w7468 ( talk) 19:07, 24 September 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. bd2412 T 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

David L. Richards

David L. Richards (  | 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:NACADEMIC. This is a stub of an article, with very little information and only a list of papers. This doesn't show that they've had a significant impact on their discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Nor have they received a highly prestigious award. In fact, they appear to fail all criteria of NACADEMIC, which is why we are here. While the page has many sources, they are mainly just sources to the papers the professor has written, not independent sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The strongest argument for notability seems to me to be that he cofounded the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, which is mentioned in the infobox but not in the article text; see this UConn Today article about the book he co-wrote (not cited in the article). I'm not sure that's enough. What tips me toward recommending deletion is that Richardsdl!!, saying he was the article subject, tried to have it deleted in 2016: blanking, speedy templating. (There were also photo substitutions by Sophia1778, who apparently said on Commons that she was Richards' wife.) In cases of marginal notability, we usually respect the subject's wishes. Things are complicated by suggestions that the article creator, Daver68, was Richards ... but I'm going to assume that if that was so, the subject had a change of heart about the article, and come down on the side of honoring the request. Since Daver68 has been notified of this discussion, I'll also drop notifications on the other two account talk pages in addition to my pings here. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I should note that per this AN thread, it appears that User:Mrdavid1729 is the article's subject (and simply lost their old account) and would very much like it deleted. Said thread is also the reason I opened this AfD in the first place. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:17, 24 September 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. bd2412 T 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Josh Rimer

AfDs for this article:
Josh Rimer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately referenced WP:BLP of a television personality and male beauty pageant contestant. Neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies that guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, so getting him over the notability bar requires demonstrating him as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But of the five sources here, two are WordPress blogs, one is a podcast and one is his own self-published Patreon, none of which are notability-supporting sources at all -- and the only one that is an acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source, The Georgia Straight, is not enough all by itself if it's the only acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source you can show. GNG requires a lot more than just one piece of real-media journalism amid a bunch of blogs and podcasts. Note that despite the earlier discussion, this is not eligible for immediate speedy as it's written and sourced differently than the original version -- but the sourcing being shown here is still not actually changing the notability equation at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Update: Three additional sources have been added; however, two (Vancouver Courier and Daily Hive) are still community hyperlocals, which are okay for verification of facts but not contributors of notability points; and the Red Deer Advocate, which is a start down the correct path as a real daily newspaper but still not enough. And all are still stacked on top of each other in violation of the citation overkill principle that we do not need three or four separate citations to be piled on top of each other as reduplicated support for the same fact. Bearcat ( talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 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. Neither "keep" mentions any reliable sources. No sources, no article. Sandstein 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)

Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | 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 sourced only by primary sources. It also seems more like a game guide than an encyclopedic article. Not a very active user ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • bd2412, do you have any sources to show that this is a notable topic? When I do a web search, I mostly get RPG source books, which are neither reliable nor independent. Rockphed ( talk) 17:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I am finding it more difficult to pinpoint sources than I would have expected. Nevertheless, typology of monsters is a ubiquitous characteristic of role-playing games. Perhaps the solution is to find a more appropriate term to head this under. bd2412 T 19:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:37, 25 September 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, contributions) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Marlen Kruzhkov

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

This article is written like a résumé and doesn't indicate why this individual is notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:MILL. A guy with a job doing his job. All the sources that are independent of the subject are not actually about the subject; all the sources that are actually about the subject are not independent of the subject. TJRC ( talk) 03:11, 28 September 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. Clear consensus to get rid of the article in some way (excluding a "keep or merge" argument that gave no reason for its suggestion). There are two redirect targets, one of which has more support but also more opposition; I'll punt the redirect-or-no question to editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Monstrous spider

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

Generic non-notable monster class that fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I feel like there might be an article we could write about giant spiders in fiction. I'm not sure there is any sourcing to back such an article up and I don't want to look for it because pictures of spiders make me very uncomfortable (yes, I am a wuss). Even writing this comment is making my skin crawl. Rockphed ( talk) 17:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Gas spore

Gas spore (  | 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 fictional monster that fails WP:GNG. The name is also pretty vague and can refer to various IRL things. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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, contributions) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Brian Greenberg

Brian Greenberg (  | 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 pass notability guidelines. Given references are mostly of him as a guest contributor on Forbes and Entrepreneur. Csgir ( talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Csgir ( talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:29, 24 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Creature template

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

Literally just a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable aspect of D&D. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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 and redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing (  | 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 minor D&D monster. A search did not turn up any external critique, analysis or what have you from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Super minor, unnotable fictional creature, so it certainly should not be an independent article. And, while it isn't the most obvious search term, I'm willing to bet that people who would actually do a search for this is looking for the article on the well known idiom. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Transformers: Titanium

Transformers: Titanium (  | 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 toy line, collection of minor details with no independent notability. TTN ( talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that this is a case of WP:BLP1E is persuasive. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Arman Alif

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

who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:GNG. this singer seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON for this young singer. obviously, this article main issue WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON. It is just due to single event that is 'Oporadhi'. all of source are single event related news. and also fail WP:NMUSIC because he just Nominated on ' Meril Prothom Alo Awards' So, isn't means that he did won something or receive any an award. Even i didn't find any notable album or any duet song with top popular singer in bangladesh. this article should be Delete.-- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, If you consider him as a musician, the article should be kept. According to second criteria a musician should have a single/album on country's music chart. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on Global Chart of YouTube. If you consider him in the criteria of any biography, he is notable. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. And the news was published by international (Deustche Welle), Indian (Ei Samay, News18) and Bangladeshi (Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, Kaler Kantho) media. The song was so popular that it was covered by crickerers. This song was before Adele and Taylor Swift's song on YouTube Global Chart ([ see this link in English]). A people can get much coverage for single event. If his/her article fulfils notability criteria, he/she will be notable. For example, Dinesh Phadnis, Aditya Srivastava, Dayanand Shetty, Shivaji Satam etc.-- S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
If a singer's single secure its place on national chart, he/she will be notable according to notability guideline of Wikipedia. And the singer has his song. He also made historical record. His song Oporadhi is the first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. So, his article also fulfils general notability guideline. And Oporadhi is not a duet song, it is a single by Arman Alif and It is not his only single. So, it should not be deleted.-- S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 10:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The basic notability criteria for biography is: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This biography subject clearly meets this criteria as he has got significant coverage in at least 3 leading mutually independent daily newspapers in Bangladesh. The "Too soon" concept applies when the basic criteria is not clearly met. -- Arman ( Talk) 13:01, 25 September 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Zacharias David Idris

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

I am on a borderline with regards to the notability of this politician to warranty a wikipedia page. The first source is primary and much of a blog, the second is a government parlimentary site which does'nt mention him. The third is but only a searching link. The last source is more or less similar to the first. There is not much significant coverage of the individual in reliable independent sources that would signify his notability as a politician or real estate mogul 10MB ( talk) 11:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:50, 24 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Juan Mera González

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 11:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Gonzalez has appeared for s gijon b and for an I league side i.e. fully pro leagues so his article won't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHISHIR DUA ( talk • contribs)

Sporting Gijon B do not play in a fully-professional league, they play in the Segunda División B which is not listed as it is semi-pro. He has not yet appeared in the I-League. Giant Snowman 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Ya, Juan appeared only in Segunda B. From November I League will also start. So, then the criteria of fully-professional league will be met. And regarding "no significant coverage" criteria, it will take time. Since many people dont know that this article page exists. 😄   S a   h a  13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Saying "he will be notable in November" is WP:CRYSTAL, while saying that obtaining coverage "will take time. Since many people dont know that this article page exists" is the wrong way round - coverage exists which is put into the article, not that the article will create coverage! Giant Snowman 13:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I can add more stuff in the article, but if the article gets deleted, adding wont make any sense. 😄   S a   h a  17:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 11:03, 24 September 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. Fenix down ( talk) 08:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Jacek Deniz Troshupa

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances for Skenderbeu despite what infobox says. BlameRuiner ( talk) 09:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ https://www.transfermarkt.com/jacek-troshupa/leistungsdaten/spieler/402028
  • Match reports are WP:MILL and don't count towards notability, and interviews on the source topic are too close to the source topic to count towards notability. There are some exceptions, I don't see that here in this case. He's simply at the moment a non-notable semi-professional footballer. SportingFlyer T· C 00:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I am simpathetic towards players in leagues of former-Yugoslavia, but I really can´t find any argument to keep him. If he had played even one game in Polish Ekstraklasa, even Albanian Superliga, but he didn´t, can´t do nothing for him, sorry. FkpCascais ( talk) 00:48, 27 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Jack Kelly (Irish footballer)

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

Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG. Half of the article isn't about the subject himself. BlameRuiner ( talk) 05:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Levivich, football isn't one of my interests, so I;m not the best person to ask for sources. A note at WT:IE might do better.
My own thoughts are that the contemporary newspapers might help. I doubt that the (subscriber-only) Irish Times has much on football, tho other archives are probably available through the (subscriber-only) British Newspaper Archive, which has archived some 19th-century Irish papers and continued some into the 20th-century. See e.g. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/evening-herald-dublin
I hope this helps a little. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have to agree there must be sources ... being the top scorer in the first season of a 100-year old league is surely of note ... there's no end of match reports in Irish newspapers in the 1920s that I can find, even in other nations of Kelly scoring for big stuff. But hard to find anything in-depth ... normally books would be the prime source for that era. I did add one 1922 source for the FAI goal. It's not an easy search term, that's for sure. I'm surprised I can't find even a passing mention of his death ... is the date correct? Nfitz ( talk) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 09:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Jack Kelly was my grandfather. There are not many sources, especially online ones of soccer in the early days in Ireland. I have read match reports on microfilm in a Dublin library but not online. Match reports tend to be sparse and lacking description. The Thomas Walsh book is out of print but is available in the national library of Ireland. The Joe Dodds book is also out of print but I have a copy, provided by Joe himself. I have researched my grandfather extensively and for now there aren't any other sources that I can find. Eoghan Rice who has contributed to this is a respected soccer historian in Ireland. As more and more materials become available online it may be possible to add to this article in the future. I have just added further references to this and will do my best to find more. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoe shine boy mo ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Lisa Bloch Rodwin

Lisa Bloch Rodwin (  | 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 family court judge, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for judges. Family court (which is the level of jurisprudence that covers things like divorce and adoption and child custody issues) is not an inherently notable level of judgeship that guarantees every family court judge a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but this article is not demonstrating any evidence that she's much more notable than the norm for her level of significance -- the notability claims here are that she won not-inherently-notable local awards and that she appeared on national television talk shows to talk about cases. But every award that exists is not always an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- and she has to be the subject being spoken about by other people, not the person doing the speaking about other things, for television content to be a notability claim. And the vast majority of the content here is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the little bit that is actually real third-party third-person journalism about her is purely local news coverage of the type that any local figure can simply and routinely expect to receive. Nothing here passes the ten year test for enduring significance, and none of it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
P.S. FWIW, I don't know her. Bearian ( talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 08:12, 24 September 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:
Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced stub about little-known Dungeon & Dragons monsters. Fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If there were a list of dungeons and dragons monsters article worth throwing this in, it might be worth redirecting. As it is, this is completely referenced to D&D books. I could see referencing to the autobiography of Gary Gygax as being a borderline real-world information source, but I do not believe such a document exists. Also, by the time this line of monsters was dreamed up, Gygax had ceased associating with the property. I think WP:NOT includes several reasons to not include indiscriminate lists of D&D information. "Wikipedia is not for something you thought up one day" applies to pretty much all D&D articles (though it is not in WP:NOT). Rockphed ( talk) 15:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Well... there are plenty of lists of D&D monsters, but they are all up for deletion because they are literal directory listings without context. D&D monsters are not something "you" thought up one day, but they do fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE if they are unreferenced. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • What I meant was that there isn't functional difference between something I conjure up from the aether in my basement and something some writer conjures up from the aether on behalf of wizards of the coast is nil until some third party starts talking about either idea. Rockphed ( talk) 17:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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) 07:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters

List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same thing as List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters and List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters. A list of each monster from each guidebook of the game is not very useful. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yet again per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and ZVCVBNM. It suffers the same problems as the already mentioned and nominated lists. This one does try to include non-primary sources, but actually looking at them reveals that they are not about the monsters at all - they are generally information pages or reviews on some of the D&D books, and either don't talk about the monsters included at all, or mention them in extreme passing. The only non-primary source here that is actually talking about 5th edition monsters in detail is the one on the Oblex, and having one in-depth look at a singular monster does not justify the rest of the list. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I think D&D players (which, full disclosure, includes me) have much too high an opinion of the noteworthiness of their hobby. As I mentioned in one of the other deletion discussions, I don't think edition specific lists are viable. Maybe a list of the D&D specific takes on monsters (both the monsters they invented and ones they uniquely interpreted) would be viable, but this list does not have sources to support its notability. Rockphed ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all just have one list article listing all the monsters from the series. There are many articles that exist for these monsters unique to the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. As long as they exist a list article showing links to them makes sense. There can be a column to list which ones were in each edition. Dream Focus 02:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 05:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced list with no indication of the subject's real-world notability. Due to the lack of sources, this might also count as original research. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It certainly isn't badly sourced as claimed, as every monster is listed in a section corresponding to the book it first appeared in. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - D&D definitely has plenty of notable elements worthy of articles, but it does not need list after list of game guide minutia. One single list of those with articles and maybe those with some notability (one real world source but not enough to hold an article) would be appropriate. TTN ( talk) 11:09, 26 September 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. Withdraw my nomination. There is now enough WP:RS to satisfy notability criteria (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Funeral Support Payment

Funeral Support Payment (  | 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 independent secondary sources cover this topic. Fails GNG. Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from the nominator - It is essentially a local or regional topic of concern in Scotland which has garnered no widespread coverage. It is probably a sub-topic of the Social Security Program of Scotland. I don't see anything remarkable or notable about this topic. This page seems to serve as notification more than an article. Hence, the following applies: WP:not a directory and WP:indiscriminate--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 24 September 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. Fenix down ( talk) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Guðmundur Andri Tryggvason

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not appeared in a fully professional league, and does not seem to pass WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per sources found during the discussion. RL0919 ( talk) 03:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Saint Louis Chamber Chorus

Saint Louis Chamber Chorus (  | 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:NBAND. No significant coverage outside of St. Louis, no tours, no recording contract, no noted performers. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:58, 24 September 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Rodrigo de la Cadena

Rodrigo de la Cadena (  | 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:NMG. Cannot find any reliable sources significantly covering his work. I also feel like this an autobiography. I am thinking of nominating 2 of his works (can be seen in the discography section) for deletion. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Epinoia: thanks for the in put. If you don't mind me asking, what do you think of his two works in the discography section? Regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 06:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- they both look like candidates for Redirects to Rodrigo de la Cadena if the article is kept - if the article is deleted they are probably candidates for deletion - Epinoia ( talk) 14:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_24&oldid=1142224961"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 September 25 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Gamma Theta Phi

Gamma Theta Phi (  | 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 fraternity with no claim to significance nor achieving any level of notability. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:14, 25 September 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. Based on the discussion here, it seems like none of the sources on offer satisfy the WP:SIGCOV criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Swingtips

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

Contrary to claim, band wasn't part of swing revival. Can't find them in any of my sources (books) or online. Not notable, not enough sources exist for an article of substance. Orphaned article for almost ten years. Vmavanti ( talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I think this article should remain as it is but with a few added corroborated links and citations as it is all factually correct and can be verified. You didn't do your research, and yes these links may not be in the article already, however, they verify information in the article marked as "citation needed." It is a blind, bold statement to claim that The Swingtips weren't part of the swing revival, as there are many sources here (some biased) as well as music compilations that show the importance of The Swingtips. Can we please keep this civil and not jump to conclusions? This has already jumped to a bad start and I thank you for bringing up the uttermost importance of more citations so that interested individuals may find more information if they feel it necessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simitar_Entertainment

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing/release/2222015

https://www.discogs.com/Various-Next-Generation-Swing-Volume-2/release/5489381

https://books.google.com/books?id=6TZCAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEILzAB

https://books.google.com/books?id=Sbo_4eR-1xEC&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-iu7G5-rkAhWVMX0KHfWDDcwQ6AEIMzAC#v=snippet&q=%22Swingtips%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=_qc4AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7o7z96-rkAhXFN30KHVffBx84ChDoATAAegQIARAD

https://books.google.com/books?id=GkhGAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Swingtips%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik7aql7OrkAhU0On0KHUV2DqA4ChDoATADegQIARAS

https://www.discogs.com/ko/Various-A-Jazzed-Up-Holiday-Volume-2/release/6626971

http://www.davidthomasroberts.com/music/cd-compilations/diamond-cuts-turning-two

https://www.amazon.com/Swingin-Christmas-Various-Artists/dp/B00000DCU9

https://books.google.com/books?id=EQoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=swinging+christmas+royalty+records&source=bl&ots=JZHIvX9xUy&sig=ACfU3U3SqLphczvwIE9haIT2yrwy0UPKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1vsyu-OrkAhVsFzQIHWVoAAIQ6AEwFXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=swinging%20christmas%20royalty%20records&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakiemon ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, No reliable sources to speak of. Half of the sources in the article are just refs supporting appearances of their songs in media, while other ones seem to indicate . The sources provided by Blakiemon do little to help; Discogs is user generated and can't be used to establish notability, and even then, just because a band was featured on a few compalations doesn't make them notable. As for the google books, all of them sans the billboard one appear to be passing mentions, and are thus not usable. The billboard one seems to be talking about a compilation, which again does not establish notability. As for the last two, the DavidThomasroberts link is just about a compilation and that's it, while the amazon is one is the same thing. It exists, but there's little coverage on them beyond that. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Their Christmas album was reviewed in the article Seasonal CDs: The good, the bad, the ... eccentric.(VARIETY)(Review); Bream, Jon ; Surowicz, Tom; Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), Dec 8, 1998, p.01E. Other than that, I mainly just found promotional material. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, just some brief mentions here and there which is not enough to fulfill the WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 14:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. It's approaching the threshold, but ultimately there just isn't enough independent coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The fact that HHelvis's comment and the IP's comment were posted a few minutes apart is additional evidence of socking. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Paybis

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

Despite the refbombing, it doesn't appear to meet GNG - the vast majority of the sources aren't reliable sources (largely blogs, with the occasional press release), and several don't even mention Paybis (they're more justifying things like "are people buying Bitcoin," which isn't relevant to the article) or are entirely unrelated to the article. I don't see any sources which look reliable. The claim to notability ("considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchanges in the Baltics") is entirely unsupported by the references. Article looks to me like undisclosed promotion/COI. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. creffett ( talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

https://cointelegraph.com/news/paybis-e-currency-and-bitcoin-exchange-planning-expansion https://www.ccn.com/paybis-leaps-towards-worldwide-crypto-adoption-by-translating-its-website-into-5-new-languages/ https://bitcoinist.com/paybis-buying-bitcoin-credit-cards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.173.185 ( talk) 08:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • keep: Page is thorough when it comes to its resources. As a cryptocurrency exchange, it makes sense that most of its resources come from authorative blockchain websites. On top of that, the second sentence of the first paragraph ("The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading and is considered to be one of the most notable cryptocurrency exchange in the Baltics.[1][2][3][4][5]”) should be updated to better match the references. This would be a more fitting sentence - “The exchange provides cryptocurrency to fiat trading.[1][2][3][4][5]”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HHelvis ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Michael Ridley

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

Cannot find any significant coverage by secondary reliable sources for WP:GNG (the article in The Independent was written by him and therefore primary), nor evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Note that being a FRAS is not in the same line as WP:NACADEMIC point 3 (particularly since they began taking student fellows). — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Mostly as being a Fellow of the RAS. My understanding is that this did count for rather more at one time, before the somewhat mercenary appearance it has now. I've heard his name mostly in relation to celadon glazes. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Right, but its reliability as being "highly selective" is no longer there so it cannot be used alone for notability now. However, if someone received it when it did mean more in the past, there are probably other indicators of notability (such as the WP:NAUTHOR discussion in the other comments). — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR, as multiple reviews of The Art of World Religions — Buddhism and The Megalithic Art of the Maltese Islands have been found and added to the article, as well as reviews of his other books (not that the reviews are always very complimentary, as David Eppstein noted in an edit summary). One review states that he was also a fellow of two other societies, so I have added that info as well. He may, on that basis, meet WP:NACADEMIC#3, though it would be good to have other evidence that he is/was a fellow of those societies. I found a few other sources which I haven't added, one saying that he was curator of Weymouth and Portland Museums in 1982 [1]; one a scan of an excavation report on The Iron Age Settlement, East Cliff, Bournemouth [2]; he was co-author of Bournemouth Then and Now [3]; and an article in the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletter #28 (possibly 1991?) about two strange exhibitions in Bournemouth put on by a Dr Michael Ridley ... [4]. I haven't found any information on where Ridley studied, however, which would be useful information for the bio of a scholar. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 11:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Four published reviews for two different books (as listed now in the article) meets my minimum threshold for this criterion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above comments on meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Polyamorph ( talk) 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply


Luqman Hakim Shamsudin

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

After initially putting it up to WP:PROD before it got removed, I am putting it up to Afd as the player hasn't played in an WP:FPL match despite being in a team which is eligible for this. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 22:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: you can get notable young players who never make it, the classic example is Sonny Pike. Giant Snowman 10:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
@ GiantSnowman: Yes, but Luqman didn't sign for Ajax at seven years of age. He's just a youth international who signed for a European team, who's not even listed in their first team. The Caoimhin Kelleher comparison is courageously false, as Kelleher was named on a team playing in the most prestigious club match of the year, has received wide international coverage in spite of his lack of an appearance, and has gone onto play for Liverpool if only in the EFL Cup, whereas Luqman is just... a youth player who signed for a Belgian team. All of the coverage is recent and he likely fails WP:BLP1E at this point. SportingFlyer T· C 02:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
That's all your personal opinion, though. "just a youth international who signed for a European team" (which is what Sonny Pike literally did do, btw...) to you, perhaps, but it's (evidently) a big event to Malaysians and arguably Belgian people of interest. "All of the coverage is recent", well he is 17? What do you want, pieces on what happened on his first day at school? Joking aside, I believe your opinions are just that. Also, I wasn't even directly comparing this AfD to the Kelleher one, though you could (I wouldn't) even argue the UCL stuff was (at time of AfD) BLP1E; also, saying "has gone onto..." isn't fair or relevant, as we can't predict the future at AfDs. R96Skinner ( talk) 03:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The recent coverage directly contradicts WP:NOTNEWS, though. I'm not looking for pieces from his first day of school, I'm looking for sustained coverage of him as a professional footballer, which hasn't happened yet because he's not even signing until March 2020. No one here has shown there's any sort of lasting notability which would pass the WP:10Y test - it's also WP:TOOSOON. We do not typically keep players who fail WP:NFOOTY unless they clearly get beyond WP:GNG, and especially not youth players - I still don't see any reason why we would be making an exception for him. SportingFlyer T· C 05:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Evidently, as seen at AfD plenty of times, NFOOTY is, not that I agree, practically worthless - it's all about GNG, which is always arguable; that's why I'd say SNGs are a better way to go, because at least it's a consistent notability line which leaves no, or little to no, questions. The fact (I missed that, good spot!) he doesn't join until 2020, in my opinion, emphasises how notable this player is - this much coverage for something that is a while away from happening, clearly high interest. Even away from the Kortrijk stuff, Luqman is/was still getting attention: [15], [16], [17], [18]. R96Skinner ( talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
WP:NFOOTY actually isn't useless. Per User:Levivich/NFooty_AfDs#No_NFooty, if you don't meet WP:NFOOTY, you're almost certainly getting deleted, though I agree many of those don't have sources presented. With regards to the final four sources you've just presented, see WP:YOUNGATH - they're all game/routine coverage of a youth player. SportingFlyer T· C 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply
I can see we aren't going to agree here, which isn't a problem - this is what AfDs are for I guess. Happy editing! R96Skinner ( talk) 17:49, 1 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty

Institute for Risk and Uncertainty (  | 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:ORG, and I am not seeing evidence of notability separate from the parent institution. The sole non-primary ref in the article [19], a news story from Guardian, does not mention the institute at all. Nothing of substance in GNews, GBooks and GScholar searches. The page was prodded and deprodded twice since its creation in June 2019. In the current state the article is pretty promotional and WP:ORish. Already had to be revel-ed once, due to copyvio issues. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:10, 25 September 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. There's a fair amount of agreement here that the title should be repurposed as some other type of navigation aid, but the page as is should be kept, if for no other reason than to maintain the attribution history. Any ideas for reworking the page can be worked out on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of LGBT-related films

List of LGBT-related 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)

List that has outlived its usefulness and been supplanted by other, more specific lists, for a subject that has become far too large to be maintainable in this one-stop format anymore. Just to be clear in case anybody misunderstands, I am not proposing that we do away with all lists of LGBT-related films; we already have many other more specific lists by year which should absolutely be kept, and I just don't think we need to keep a massive A-Z master list alongside them anymore.
When this was first created in 2003, there were a lot fewer LGBT-related films to list at all -- the original version literally had only around 100 films in it total. But with the sheer explosion in the visibility and sourceability and mainstreaming of LGBT-themed films in the intervening 16 years, we now have over 3,000 articles about LGBT-related films before you even take into account the considerable number of LGBT-themed films that are currently still redlinks, and the literally unfathomable number of LGBT-themed films still to come in the future. So in 2012, we started a comprehensive set of LGBT-related films subgrouped by year of release, which is highly developed and very well-maintained -- and with those lists in place, the value in trying to maintain a comprehensive A-Z master list alongside them is significantly reduced.
The sheer number of LGBT-related films that need to be listed now also poses a serious maintainability problem -- films frequently get added to the by-year lists without being added here, and the sheer number of films involved makes it virtually impossible to actually undertake any serious effort to get all the missing films added here anymore. And, by comparison, if a country has "List of [Country] films of [Year]" lists in place, then we just use "List of [Country] films" as an index of links to the year lists and not as a redundant master list of all the films that are already in the sublists -- and the sheer scope of this topic means we should treat it like a "country" in that sense.
TLDR, I believe this "comprehensive" master list has outlived its usefulness. We should just delete it, move List of LGBT-related films by year overtop the redlink, and let the by-year lists stand on their own from now on instead of trying to compile a reduplicated master list alongside them. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 09:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Repurposing this title as the move destination of one of the other lists is exactly what I proposed. The discussion is fundamentally about whether there's any value in maintaining a massive A-Z master list alongside the other lists anymore, so AFD is the appropriate venue for that discussion — but deletion of this list would not preclude reusing the title for a different purpose, because deletion never precludes redirection or repurposing of its title to cover something else. So the ability to repurpose the title into something else is not a reason why we would need to retain the content of this list in its existing form, which is what a keep result would mandate. Bearcat ( talk) 16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Your proposal is to move List of LGBT-related films by year to this space, however, List of LGBT-related films by year (which has multiple lists) is not the same as List of LGBT-related films (single list), it is in fact more Lists of LGBT-related films. This is something that should simply be a move that can be proposed in its talk page, discuss, move then adjust the content. Much simpler and less likely to result in unnecessary mistakes. Hzh ( talk) 19:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Bearcat, the goal is to preserve the attribution history. I agree that we don't need a list, but I do not agree that we need to explicitly delete the list as it never existed. The history of this goes back to 2003. The list now persists in more specific forms, and it has not been proven that these forms have never relied on the original list. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The matter of whether the by-year lists ever relied on this list or not is completely impossible to prove or disprove in either direction — how, exactly, is anybody supposed to prove anything either way about whether the year lists were compiled by pulling films directly from this list, or from the same outside sources that were used to build this list? And secondly, as of the time that the year lists started getting spun out, the list was half as long or less as it is now — so by far the largest group of involved films were (a) added to both the year set and this list concurrently, (b) added to the year set first and then added here later, or (c) added to the year lists and never actually added here at all, and thus never relied on the existence of this list as their source. And even for the far smaller number of films that were already in this list before the by-year lists got spun out, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on external sources, or on this master list per se, is not my responsibility to prove. And precisely because external sources do exist for the classification, and we're supposed to be relying on those outside sources rather than self-citing ourselves in violation of WP:CIRCULAR, the question of whether the by-year lists relied on this list or on the external sources isn't even an important consideration at all. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Like I said, I agree with converting this into a "lists" article. I don't understand why you want to delete the entire page history. Look at list of science fiction films. It redirects to lists of science fiction films, and we can see the oldest edits going back to 2001. That's what I favor. Not the outright deletion of the original topic editing, which was completely valid and likely spun off into the specific lists. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Here is an example of the need to preserve copyright. Editor Dev920 began "splitting list" on July 31, 2007 with List of LGBT-related films and List of LGBT-related films by year. Later, in August 2012, editor Lugnuts split that (and contributions in between) out into individual years here. The page history of the original list should be preserved. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 16:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Just a note that if you bold the word "delete", it would look like you are choosing to delete the article, which is in fact what's recorded in your AfD stats. Bold either keep or delete. Hzh ( talk) 17:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks, I changed it from bold to underline. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 18:11, 30 September 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) 19:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Japanese terms mistaken for gairaigo

List of Japanese terms mistaken for gairaigo (  | 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 topic of this article is incoherent: by whom is the mistake supposed to be made? It is almost completely unreferenced; fails notability, because there is no evidence of a literature on the topic of this ragbag of mistakes. Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium ( talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Followup by proposer: This article is >10 years old, and has collected seven entries in the list:

  • arigatou: This in itself is perhaps notable, because yes, it is a famous bogus etymology. I can't believe that any native Japanese speaker would imagine this to be a loan word -- it is not written in katakana.
  • baba: This is probably a general phenomenon that there are very similar words across almost all languages.
  • chakku: This might indeed be thought by native speakers to be a loan word, but isn't.
  • chari: Nobody seems to know where this came from.
  • emoji: This is a recent import into English. No native speaker would imagine it was a loan into Japanese (of course moji came from Chinese originally).
  • garou: A very strained story... unreferenced.
  • neta: Yes, many Japanese speakers might not know its origin; it's written in katakana.

@ T.c.w7468: The latest entry (emoji) is obviously good faith. But it really has no coherent connection to the other entries. I contemplated deleting it, but it is so unclear what the topic is supposed to be that it seems unfair to privilege the other entries above it. I can't see quite what the reference says, but it appears just to mention that this is unrelated to "emoticon". True, but not notable.

I would guess that anything up to 10% of the entire vocabulary of Japanese (or any other language!) would have faintly plausible mistaken guesses as to its meaning. I suggest that trying to collect a comprehensive list is therefore not encyclopedic. Imaginatorium ( talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: (I hope I'm formatting this correctly) I suppose what you are saying makes sense. I added the entry for emoji because I thought that the article was for a list for words mistaken for gairaigo in general, as opposed to ones being commonly mistaken specifically by Japanese people. The reference was taken from other Wikipedia articles referencing the fact that the two aren't related, and was meant to demonstrate that the statement was true, which at the time of editing I thought was sufficient for this article. Perhaps it was bad practice on my part. I do not feel confident enough in my understanding of Wikipedia's policy to form an opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted, though I think you do have a good case. I'm just writing this in case my (flawed) thought process behind the edit becomes useful for further discussion. T.c.w7468 ( talk) 19:07, 24 September 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. bd2412 T 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

David L. Richards

David L. Richards (  | 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:NACADEMIC. This is a stub of an article, with very little information and only a list of papers. This doesn't show that they've had a significant impact on their discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Nor have they received a highly prestigious award. In fact, they appear to fail all criteria of NACADEMIC, which is why we are here. While the page has many sources, they are mainly just sources to the papers the professor has written, not independent sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. The strongest argument for notability seems to me to be that he cofounded the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, which is mentioned in the infobox but not in the article text; see this UConn Today article about the book he co-wrote (not cited in the article). I'm not sure that's enough. What tips me toward recommending deletion is that Richardsdl!!, saying he was the article subject, tried to have it deleted in 2016: blanking, speedy templating. (There were also photo substitutions by Sophia1778, who apparently said on Commons that she was Richards' wife.) In cases of marginal notability, we usually respect the subject's wishes. Things are complicated by suggestions that the article creator, Daver68, was Richards ... but I'm going to assume that if that was so, the subject had a change of heart about the article, and come down on the side of honoring the request. Since Daver68 has been notified of this discussion, I'll also drop notifications on the other two account talk pages in addition to my pings here. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I should note that per this AN thread, it appears that User:Mrdavid1729 is the article's subject (and simply lost their old account) and would very much like it deleted. Said thread is also the reason I opened this AfD in the first place. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:17, 24 September 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. bd2412 T 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Josh Rimer

AfDs for this article:
Josh Rimer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately referenced WP:BLP of a television personality and male beauty pageant contestant. Neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies that guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, so getting him over the notability bar requires demonstrating him as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But of the five sources here, two are WordPress blogs, one is a podcast and one is his own self-published Patreon, none of which are notability-supporting sources at all -- and the only one that is an acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source, The Georgia Straight, is not enough all by itself if it's the only acceptable, notability-assisting reliable source you can show. GNG requires a lot more than just one piece of real-media journalism amid a bunch of blogs and podcasts. Note that despite the earlier discussion, this is not eligible for immediate speedy as it's written and sourced differently than the original version -- but the sourcing being shown here is still not actually changing the notability equation at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Update: Three additional sources have been added; however, two (Vancouver Courier and Daily Hive) are still community hyperlocals, which are okay for verification of facts but not contributors of notability points; and the Red Deer Advocate, which is a start down the correct path as a real daily newspaper but still not enough. And all are still stacked on top of each other in violation of the citation overkill principle that we do not need three or four separate citations to be piled on top of each other as reduplicated support for the same fact. Bearcat ( talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 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. Neither "keep" mentions any reliable sources. No sources, no article. Sandstein 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)

Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | 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 sourced only by primary sources. It also seems more like a game guide than an encyclopedic article. Not a very active user ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • bd2412, do you have any sources to show that this is a notable topic? When I do a web search, I mostly get RPG source books, which are neither reliable nor independent. Rockphed ( talk) 17:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I am finding it more difficult to pinpoint sources than I would have expected. Nevertheless, typology of monsters is a ubiquitous characteristic of role-playing games. Perhaps the solution is to find a more appropriate term to head this under. bd2412 T 19:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:37, 25 September 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, contributions) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Marlen Kruzhkov

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

This article is written like a résumé and doesn't indicate why this individual is notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:MILL. A guy with a job doing his job. All the sources that are independent of the subject are not actually about the subject; all the sources that are actually about the subject are not independent of the subject. TJRC ( talk) 03:11, 28 September 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. Clear consensus to get rid of the article in some way (excluding a "keep or merge" argument that gave no reason for its suggestion). There are two redirect targets, one of which has more support but also more opposition; I'll punt the redirect-or-no question to editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Monstrous spider

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

Generic non-notable monster class that fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I feel like there might be an article we could write about giant spiders in fiction. I'm not sure there is any sourcing to back such an article up and I don't want to look for it because pictures of spiders make me very uncomfortable (yes, I am a wuss). Even writing this comment is making my skin crawl. Rockphed ( talk) 17:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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, contributions) 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Gas spore

Gas spore (  | 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 fictional monster that fails WP:GNG. The name is also pretty vague and can refer to various IRL things. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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, contributions) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Brian Greenberg

Brian Greenberg (  | 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 pass notability guidelines. Given references are mostly of him as a guest contributor on Forbes and Entrepreneur. Csgir ( talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Csgir ( talk) 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:29, 24 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Creature template

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

Literally just a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable aspect of D&D. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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 and redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing

Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing (  | 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 minor D&D monster. A search did not turn up any external critique, analysis or what have you from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect to Wolf in sheep's clothing. Super minor, unnotable fictional creature, so it certainly should not be an independent article. And, while it isn't the most obvious search term, I'm willing to bet that people who would actually do a search for this is looking for the article on the well known idiom. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Transformers: Titanium

Transformers: Titanium (  | 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 toy line, collection of minor details with no independent notability. TTN ( talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 14:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that this is a case of WP:BLP1E is persuasive. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Arman Alif

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

who fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:GNG. this singer seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON for this young singer. obviously, this article main issue WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON. It is just due to single event that is 'Oporadhi'. all of source are single event related news. and also fail WP:NMUSIC because he just Nominated on ' Meril Prothom Alo Awards' So, isn't means that he did won something or receive any an award. Even i didn't find any notable album or any duet song with top popular singer in bangladesh. this article should be Delete.-- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, If you consider him as a musician, the article should be kept. According to second criteria a musician should have a single/album on country's music chart. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on Global Chart of YouTube. If you consider him in the criteria of any biography, he is notable. His song "Oporadhi" is the only and first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. And the news was published by international (Deustche Welle), Indian (Ei Samay, News18) and Bangladeshi (Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, Kaler Kantho) media. The song was so popular that it was covered by crickerers. This song was before Adele and Taylor Swift's song on YouTube Global Chart ([ see this link in English]). A people can get much coverage for single event. If his/her article fulfils notability criteria, he/she will be notable. For example, Dinesh Phadnis, Aditya Srivastava, Dayanand Shetty, Shivaji Satam etc.-- S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
If a singer's single secure its place on national chart, he/she will be notable according to notability guideline of Wikipedia. And the singer has his song. He also made historical record. His song Oporadhi is the first Bangladeshi song to feature on YouTube Global Chart. So, his article also fulfils general notability guideline. And Oporadhi is not a duet song, it is a single by Arman Alif and It is not his only single. So, it should not be deleted.-- S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 10:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The basic notability criteria for biography is: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This biography subject clearly meets this criteria as he has got significant coverage in at least 3 leading mutually independent daily newspapers in Bangladesh. The "Too soon" concept applies when the basic criteria is not clearly met. -- Arman ( Talk) 13:01, 25 September 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Zacharias David Idris

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

I am on a borderline with regards to the notability of this politician to warranty a wikipedia page. The first source is primary and much of a blog, the second is a government parlimentary site which does'nt mention him. The third is but only a searching link. The last source is more or less similar to the first. There is not much significant coverage of the individual in reliable independent sources that would signify his notability as a politician or real estate mogul 10MB ( talk) 11:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:50, 24 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Juan Mera González

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 11:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Gonzalez has appeared for s gijon b and for an I league side i.e. fully pro leagues so his article won't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHISHIR DUA ( talk • contribs)

Sporting Gijon B do not play in a fully-professional league, they play in the Segunda División B which is not listed as it is semi-pro. He has not yet appeared in the I-League. Giant Snowman 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Ya, Juan appeared only in Segunda B. From November I League will also start. So, then the criteria of fully-professional league will be met. And regarding "no significant coverage" criteria, it will take time. Since many people dont know that this article page exists. 😄   S a   h a  13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Saying "he will be notable in November" is WP:CRYSTAL, while saying that obtaining coverage "will take time. Since many people dont know that this article page exists" is the wrong way round - coverage exists which is put into the article, not that the article will create coverage! Giant Snowman 13:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I can add more stuff in the article, but if the article gets deleted, adding wont make any sense. 😄   S a   h a  17:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 11:03, 24 September 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. Fenix down ( talk) 08:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Jacek Deniz Troshupa

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances for Skenderbeu despite what infobox says. BlameRuiner ( talk) 09:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ https://www.transfermarkt.com/jacek-troshupa/leistungsdaten/spieler/402028
  • Match reports are WP:MILL and don't count towards notability, and interviews on the source topic are too close to the source topic to count towards notability. There are some exceptions, I don't see that here in this case. He's simply at the moment a non-notable semi-professional footballer. SportingFlyer T· C 00:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I am simpathetic towards players in leagues of former-Yugoslavia, but I really can´t find any argument to keep him. If he had played even one game in Polish Ekstraklasa, even Albanian Superliga, but he didn´t, can´t do nothing for him, sorry. FkpCascais ( talk) 00:48, 27 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Jack Kelly (Irish footballer)

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

Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG. Half of the article isn't about the subject himself. BlameRuiner ( talk) 05:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Levivich, football isn't one of my interests, so I;m not the best person to ask for sources. A note at WT:IE might do better.
My own thoughts are that the contemporary newspapers might help. I doubt that the (subscriber-only) Irish Times has much on football, tho other archives are probably available through the (subscriber-only) British Newspaper Archive, which has archived some 19th-century Irish papers and continued some into the 20th-century. See e.g. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/evening-herald-dublin
I hope this helps a little. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have to agree there must be sources ... being the top scorer in the first season of a 100-year old league is surely of note ... there's no end of match reports in Irish newspapers in the 1920s that I can find, even in other nations of Kelly scoring for big stuff. But hard to find anything in-depth ... normally books would be the prime source for that era. I did add one 1922 source for the FAI goal. It's not an easy search term, that's for sure. I'm surprised I can't find even a passing mention of his death ... is the date correct? Nfitz ( talk) 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 09:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Jack Kelly was my grandfather. There are not many sources, especially online ones of soccer in the early days in Ireland. I have read match reports on microfilm in a Dublin library but not online. Match reports tend to be sparse and lacking description. The Thomas Walsh book is out of print but is available in the national library of Ireland. The Joe Dodds book is also out of print but I have a copy, provided by Joe himself. I have researched my grandfather extensively and for now there aren't any other sources that I can find. Eoghan Rice who has contributed to this is a respected soccer historian in Ireland. As more and more materials become available online it may be possible to add to this article in the future. I have just added further references to this and will do my best to find more. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoe shine boy mo ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Lisa Bloch Rodwin

Lisa Bloch Rodwin (  | 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 family court judge, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for judges. Family court (which is the level of jurisprudence that covers things like divorce and adoption and child custody issues) is not an inherently notable level of judgeship that guarantees every family court judge a Wikipedia article just because she exists, but this article is not demonstrating any evidence that she's much more notable than the norm for her level of significance -- the notability claims here are that she won not-inherently-notable local awards and that she appeared on national television talk shows to talk about cases. But every award that exists is not always an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- and she has to be the subject being spoken about by other people, not the person doing the speaking about other things, for television content to be a notability claim. And the vast majority of the content here is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the little bit that is actually real third-party third-person journalism about her is purely local news coverage of the type that any local figure can simply and routinely expect to receive. Nothing here passes the ten year test for enduring significance, and none of it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
P.S. FWIW, I don't know her. Bearian ( talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 08:12, 24 September 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:
Abomination (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced stub about little-known Dungeon & Dragons monsters. Fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If there were a list of dungeons and dragons monsters article worth throwing this in, it might be worth redirecting. As it is, this is completely referenced to D&D books. I could see referencing to the autobiography of Gary Gygax as being a borderline real-world information source, but I do not believe such a document exists. Also, by the time this line of monsters was dreamed up, Gygax had ceased associating with the property. I think WP:NOT includes several reasons to not include indiscriminate lists of D&D information. "Wikipedia is not for something you thought up one day" applies to pretty much all D&D articles (though it is not in WP:NOT). Rockphed ( talk) 15:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Well... there are plenty of lists of D&D monsters, but they are all up for deletion because they are literal directory listings without context. D&D monsters are not something "you" thought up one day, but they do fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE if they are unreferenced. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • What I meant was that there isn't functional difference between something I conjure up from the aether in my basement and something some writer conjures up from the aether on behalf of wizards of the coast is nil until some third party starts talking about either idea. Rockphed ( talk) 17:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 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) 07:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters

List of Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition monsters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same thing as List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters and List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters. A list of each monster from each guidebook of the game is not very useful. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 06:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yet again per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 14:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and ZVCVBNM. It suffers the same problems as the already mentioned and nominated lists. This one does try to include non-primary sources, but actually looking at them reveals that they are not about the monsters at all - they are generally information pages or reviews on some of the D&D books, and either don't talk about the monsters included at all, or mention them in extreme passing. The only non-primary source here that is actually talking about 5th edition monsters in detail is the one on the Oblex, and having one in-depth look at a singular monster does not justify the rest of the list. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I think D&D players (which, full disclosure, includes me) have much too high an opinion of the noteworthiness of their hobby. As I mentioned in one of the other deletion discussions, I don't think edition specific lists are viable. Maybe a list of the D&D specific takes on monsters (both the monsters they invented and ones they uniquely interpreted) would be viable, but this list does not have sources to support its notability. Rockphed ( talk) 15:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all just have one list article listing all the monsters from the series. There are many articles that exist for these monsters unique to the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. As long as they exist a list article showing links to them makes sense. There can be a column to list which ones were in each edition. Dream Focus 02:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 05:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced list with no indication of the subject's real-world notability. Due to the lack of sources, this might also count as original research. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user ( talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It certainly isn't badly sourced as claimed, as every monster is listed in a section corresponding to the book it first appeared in. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - D&D definitely has plenty of notable elements worthy of articles, but it does not need list after list of game guide minutia. One single list of those with articles and maybe those with some notability (one real world source but not enough to hold an article) would be appropriate. TTN ( talk) 11:09, 26 September 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. Withdraw my nomination. There is now enough WP:RS to satisfy notability criteria (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn ( talk) 13:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Funeral Support Payment

Funeral Support Payment (  | 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 independent secondary sources cover this topic. Fails GNG. Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from the nominator - It is essentially a local or regional topic of concern in Scotland which has garnered no widespread coverage. It is probably a sub-topic of the Social Security Program of Scotland. I don't see anything remarkable or notable about this topic. This page seems to serve as notification more than an article. Hence, the following applies: WP:not a directory and WP:indiscriminate--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 24 September 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. Fenix down ( talk) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Guðmundur Andri Tryggvason

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not appeared in a fully professional league, and does not seem to pass WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per sources found during the discussion. RL0919 ( talk) 03:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Saint Louis Chamber Chorus

Saint Louis Chamber Chorus (  | 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:NBAND. No significant coverage outside of St. Louis, no tours, no recording contract, no noted performers. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Rogermx ( talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:58, 24 September 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Rodrigo de la Cadena

Rodrigo de la Cadena (  | 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:NMG. Cannot find any reliable sources significantly covering his work. I also feel like this an autobiography. I am thinking of nominating 2 of his works (can be seen in the discography section) for deletion. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Epinoia: thanks for the in put. If you don't mind me asking, what do you think of his two works in the discography section? Regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 06:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- they both look like candidates for Redirects to Rodrigo de la Cadena if the article is kept - if the article is deleted they are probably candidates for deletion - Epinoia ( talk) 14:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_24&oldid=1142224961"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE