Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 18: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:25, 18 December 2019 editPiotrus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,945 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High Elves (Warhammer). (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:27, 18 December 2019 edit undoCoffee (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Sabbagh.Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->		<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Sabbagh}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High Elves (Warhammer)}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High Elves (Warhammer)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argentine units of measurement}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argentine units of measurement}}

Revision as of 12:27, 18 December 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 2 (Thu) January 1 (Wed) December 31 (Tue) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 17 December	19 December >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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. Tone 09:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sabrina Sabbagh

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

After removing all unreliable sources from the article, there are no sources in this. I did a check for sources online as well, and found no published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalist. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Elves. RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

High Elves (Warhammer)

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

Most Warhammer races are already deleted, redirecting to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy, and nothing suggests this piece of fancruft deserves to stay around. Usual failure of GNG/NFICTION/PLOT with nothing but a PRIMARY source or two. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy, which I assume is what the nominator is actually proposing - not deletion? 99.9% of the content in this article could only ever be sourced to Games Workshop publications, and the amount of substantial coverage in independent sources is little to none. Does not pass WP:GNG Hug 17:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy as per Hugsyrup. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 12:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete or redirect - Fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete or redirect unless some decent sources are identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Argentine units of measurement

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

Another article based almost entirely on the very bad Cardarelli source and the equally bad Washburn and Clarke books. Furthermore, all these supposedly "national" units of measurement were actually imported from Spain when Argentina was a Spanish colony. Thus, I am unconvinced that this is an actual topic. Units of measurement used by the native inhabitants of the area would be a different matter but I can't find any good sources on that topic. Reyk _YO! 12:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. The sources aren't reliable, and even supposing we could turn up better references describing specifically Argentine variants of units used much more widely, that would hardly merit a dedicated article. Such hypothetical variants could be fit more usefully in Spanish customary units, for example. Pre-colonial systems of measurement would be more interesting, but I'm not sure they should be called Argentine (that's a bit like calling the Haudenosaunee Confederacy part of the United States). XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - When this was last discussed the evidence that the Cardelli reference was bad turned out simply to be some issues over Japanese units, and in fact Cardelli is supported as a good source by numerous other reliable sources. The same goes for Washburn and Clark. The deletion rational here appears to be that all the references are bad, but this is not substantiated. The article itself gives reasons as to why these units are not the same as Spanish customary units (because they varied regionally - similarly to the way in which US gallons are not the same as Imperial ones). Hence units are given here used in Buenos Aires that differ from the customary units of Spain. And here also. And also here. And here as well. Wow here too. Double Wow - here's an entire 1939 research paper on Argentine and other South American customary units. As with the previous discussion about the unit Stueck, I think there is an argument that perhaps these units should all be merged at a particular level (e.g., into a wider list), but in this case this has already happened (they are merged at the country-level), and I think this avoids WP:DICDEF issues.

EDIT: given the number of references there are in this case findable via a simple GBooks search I'm also going to say this is a pretty obvious WP:BEFORE failure. FOARP (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The NIST "endorsement" of Cardarelli was one line in an FAQ webpage from 2004, hardly the in-depth evaluation that the previous AfD sold it as. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Whereas the "evidence" that Cardelli (and Washburn, and Clarke, and...) is bad is basically editor chit-chat. Meanwhile one of the main claims made by the nom (no such thing as Argentine units) turns out to be demonstrably untrue based on the above sources, and people have been talking about Argentine units for decades before Cardelli was published. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I resent that claim. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at various bits of the Cardarelli book, using reason, intelligence, and, yes, your precious "sources" (I have checked against standard reference works, in other words). Your view appears to be that the mindless copying of confusion, inaccuracy, and plain nonsense from "proper printed books" is to be regarded as superior to actually critically looking at claims. Of course Cardarelli's book is WP:RE-"LIE"-ABLE, but it, or rather, the part of it (not endorsed at all by NIST, or anyone else) relating to historical units is by and large an uncritical and careless scraping of much older books (by Clarke and others) many of whose confusions might be forgiven at that time. Even so, I have pointed out that Basil Hall Chamberlain managed a vastly more competent treatment of Japanese unit after Clarke but a long time before Washburn. Again, I have to point out that many careless errors and confusions have been found in Cardarelli which have nothing to do with Japanese units in particular. (Stupping tons, Pittsburgh=Petersburg confusion, etc etc). Imaginatorium (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

In this case, before simply saying that Cardelli is bad the nom might have looked to see whether Argentinian units actually exist - and the evidence seems pretty conclusive that they did. FOARP (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen Cardarelli's later book but his earlier one is a mess. I've found Koizumi Kesakatsu to be much more reliable, and not only for Japanese units. I don't have immediate access to Koizumi's Zukan: Tan'i no rekishi-jiten (i.e. "An illustrated historical dictionary of units") but I do have on my lap my copy of the 4th edition (1981) of his Tan'i no jiten (i.e. "Dictionary of units"). Koizumi writes in the latter (for the three units I bothered to look up), that the frasco was specifically Argentinian, that the vara was multinational, and that the Mass was Austrian. So the content of this article isn't all wrong, or even all misleading. But it's unreliable, as any article on obsolete units must be if based on Cardarelli. An additional problem is that -- to me, at least -- it's intermittently incomprehensible. For example, Even in 1920 (after the adoption of metric system), units like vara (0.866 m), pie (0.289 m) libra (0.4595 kg) and tonelada (918.8 kg) were still used by mixing the values of the Spanish terms of metric and English units (e.g. vara for meter) by showing the requirement to avoid mixing of terms in old system and metric system and English system. This led to a mixed system of units after adoption of the metric system. I've now read this four times but I can only start to guess at what it means. Delete it; don't rush to delete a replacement by somebody who demonstrably (i) knows something about metrology, (ii) reads Spanish, (iii) has access to an academic library that's strong in Spanish, (iv) has the regular editorial superpowers -- though I'd guess that a redirect to something like "Non-metric units in South America" or "Obsolete units in South America" would be better. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hoary, old chap, I think you must be looking at a historical version. The incoherent bit was written by now-gone user Shevonsilva, and the Austrian units were where the same Shevonsilva accidentally copied Cardarelli's list of the next entry to Argentina in alphabetical order. Both have gone now. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Oopsie, I really must be careful when browsing the interwebs with PrecatastropheZilla (select names of charlatans/narcissists; view the world as it was before they assumed power). I'll have to think about this, and pontificate afresh. Meanwhile, do we have reason to doubt Koizumi's indication that the frasco was specifically Argentinian? -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes: according to wiktionary "frasco" is a Spanish (as well as the more obvious Portuguese) term for "bottle". It's not really a unit, just a word for a container that might have had a specific connotation in Argentina (but might not). Imaginatorium (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Koizumi writes フラスコ frasco (種)体積　アルゼンチン固有の単位、2.51米クォート、2.09英クォートまたは2.375l. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems similar,again, to the discussion over "Stuck". The mere fact that something means something in a particular language does not prevent it also being a unit of measurement. FOARP (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but there are "genuine" units, like feet or picometres, then there are "containers-used-as-units", whether sacks, bottles, or words like "load". These may have conventional sizes associated with them, but anything written in ignorance of the fact that they are also containers should not really be accepted on its own. I really wonder if Koizumi, for example, realises that frasco is another Spanish word for bottle. And, FWIW, this really is not comparable to stuck, which is an abbreviation of an Anglicisation of a German word, Stückfaß", which is a type of wine barrel. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep. There are enogu hgoodsources. Whether we will need one for every possible country isa separate question, bu there is enoughdistinctivecontnet here to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 17:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete : Misplaced Pages would be very slightly better without this "article". I can imagine a real article on the use of Spanish units in South America, but it would include reference to at least one work of scholarship (probably in Spanish) on the topic. The problem with all the references cited is that while they are PPBs ("proper printed books"), they are all collections of anecdotes, of varying levels of reliability. Going back to the earlier historical sources, people like Washburn were obviously not actually experts in the culture of almost all of the countries they were listing units for; they did their best with what they could find on the Internet. Oh, wait a minute, whatever people used before the Internet. And the proposer is right that there are not any Argentinian units; these are (Spanish) units which were used in Argentina (and I think this is actually what all of the sources say). The current title is either inaccurate if it is using "Argentine" as an adjective, or ungrammatical if using it as a noun. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Danny Edwards (footballer)

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

Danny Edwards never played for Port Vale or appeared in any professional football match. Soccerbase erroneously credits him with the appearance data for Paul Edwards for that season. The BBC report on that "debut" match is also inaccurate, Sky Sports correctly names Paul. Echetus Xe 11:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Echetus Xe 11:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete as fails all applicable guidelines. Happy Festivities! // J 947 04:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. MER-C 03:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yuni Wa

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

Was a previous A7, but now reappeared from an WP:SPA who "dropped" this BLP in one go on their 2nd edit to Misplaced Pages (e.g. WP:SPI and/or WP:UPE issues here). Lots of Instagram/youtube/blogs on this subject, but nothing in the main music RS like Rolling Stone; zero SIGCOV. Instead of going A7 (again), I decided to bring to the AfD community. Britishfinance (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted. The artist that it’s about has 11.5 million listens globally and is a legitimate globally known artist. All links show proof that they are an active artist and have been releasing music for years with songs that have as much as 100,000 views to over 1 million views. They are housed under one of biggest distribution companies in the country (Symphonic Distribution) and everything on all grounds is confirmable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetoncole (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You need to explain to your client that existence is not sufficient to be notable on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability does not include "youtube hits", as they are misleading (and potentially made-up), statistics; hence why your client needs Misplaced Pages to improve their actual notability. Britishfinance (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Explain to my client? I’m sorry I’am Princeton Coleman aka yuni wa. Here is a major problem you are not understand. The definition of no·ta·bil·i·ty is the fact or quality of being notable or being known. You are calling my very real YouTube statistics fake and you are ignoring that I’ve been featured on one of the biggest music media companies to date (Elevator Mag) I’ve been nominated for best electronic producer/Dj by the Arkansas times. Named one of the top visionary Arkansans for the year of 2017 by the Arkansas times. I was literally even on the vice website for production credits that I have with someone that is signed to mass appeal records. Who are you and why are you out right disregarding the proof that is right there. The fact you are saying I have “YouTube hits” and fake statistics is extremely disrespectful and you are mishandling your job greatly and you are treating this situation poorly. Notability is being well known, you are disregarding the well known songs I have on YouTube, SoundCloud, and Spotify. Actually since you think my YouTube stats are fake you know I’m doing 42k monthly on Spotify right? If you keep disregarding the information I will simply go out my way to inquire further and possibly see to it that you lose your job doing this because this is disrespectful to everything I’ve worked for specially since I actually do meet the notability requirements. You need to do your research. Also I never said my existence was sufficient for a page I’m literally a well known music producer and you are ignorant to that. Read the references, look at my history online as a Music producer. None of this is made up.user talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 December 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetoncole (talk • contribs)

"If you keep disregarding the information I will simply go out my way to inquire further and possibly see to it that you lose your job doing this" is a WP:THREAT and should be withdrawn. Narky Blert (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You have a prodigious talent for Misplaced Pages producing an article of that quality on your 2nd edit; if the music business does not work out, you have a future here, although creating your own BLP is a WP:COI. However, if your story about being the author is not true, then we are probably in WP:SPI and WP:UPE territory (concepts you are probably familiar with from other accounts). In any event, we shall let the community decide the outcome. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete - The above discussion has revealed that the article was created by the musician himself, and while conflict of interest is certainly relevant, the gentleman simply does not understand that Misplaced Pages is not a promotional service but instead provides information on people, things, and events that have become items of general knowledge. This requires evidence of significant media coverage in reliable sources, and quantities of YouTube views and Instagram shares won't cut it. The musician has self-released a lot music that has been largely ignored by the media and has produced some other people who are themselves non-notable. Sorry, but come back after you get noticed by reliable critics and people outside of your own social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Absent very good coverage about the person, articles about record producers are almost always deleted, because they are plainly run of the mill. Any person over the age of seven can post a video on the Internet or spin a record, and get millions of followers. We could excuse noobies in 2009, but not in 2019; everyone has known for years that Misplaced Pages is not for self-promotion and that as a charity governed by New York laws, we and Letitia James enforce notability standards and punish self-dealing. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

2018 European Athletics U18 Championships – Boys' 100 metres

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

An individual event at an u18 championship doesn't get enough attention to warrant an article. The championship as a whole is notable enough, but not everything that happened there. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable event competed in by no-one notable. Fails WP:GNG - no coverage other than routine reports that it happened (a lot happens but most of it, like this, is not notable in Misplaced Pages terms). Neiltonks (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lugnuts 19:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete I agree on the nominator point here as I would say this article is notable but the entire championship is though. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Merge to 2018 European Athletics U18 Championships. I see no pressing reason why this detail should removed entirely instead of merged to the main article which is less than 25K in size. SFB 17:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Paris Jackson (disambiguation)

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

Only a single article other than the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is listed. In my opinion, this page isn't necessary and can easily be replaced with a hatnote on the primary topic's article. Vaporgaze (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Per nominator.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Per nominator. If there's only one alternative to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC a hatnote is the best way to go. Neiltonks (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. The hatnote is better.—ShelfSkewed Talk 17:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: hatnote suffices (and I've just added it). PamD 09:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete as unneeded. Happy Festivities! // J 947 04:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per WP:2DABS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Streamlabs

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

The article can be better merged with Logitech. I don't think there is a need to have a separate article. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Notable software. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This nomination doesn't seem to be within the scope of AfD. -2pou (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Week keep: The original unanimous consensus was to keep, but this article has been relisted twice. Only one editor participated so far, but nobody is interested in deleting this. So let it be.--23mason (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to the parent company. In case of doubt, that's the safest course. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. This list is in a weird state between "it's useless in its present form" and "it's probably notable and could be improved to be useful". I don't see consensus forming at this time, but I recommend to either improve it to make it useful, or AfD it again after some time (at least 6-12 months) to get some fresh eyes on it. – sgeureka 22:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Bob Hope television specials

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

A pointless list that adds nothing to the parent Bob Hope article. It doesn't explain the specials. It doesn't link to any articles for the specials. It's just a list. I would argue it's CRUFT. True CRaysball | 09:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. True CRaysball | 09:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I've added years to the article to remove the textwall feel of the article, but there is a purpose to this list as it shows the subject's breadth of specials over a number of years. Definitely an expansion candidate, but it's better than having 100+ articles where it's just a Ctrl+V stubfarm of a few synopses with changing guests. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you that it could definitely be expanded on. There's a great article to be had here. But in its current state, it's a useless CRUFT list. If it were completely up to me (which it's not), I'd move it to your userspace for draft in to a proper article. True CRaysball | 19:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete or draft - I have to agree with nom. This really doesn't add anything in it's current state as it's just a long list of almost identical titles with 3 sources, 2 of which are IMDB and YouTube (and the 3rd dead). In this current state it's just better to summarize it and use the lead of this article in the main one. --Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. and expand. A combination or list article is the way to deal with these. They're culturally signifcant enough to be included, andprobably better not in any of the posible mroegeneral articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I fail to see the point of this article. What information does it exactly provide about these television specials? JIP | Talk 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment agree with DGG about being culturally significant, indeed i am reminded of point no. 5 of WP:NBOOK (pleas forgive my poetic licence:)) "Hope is so historically/culturally significant that any of Hope's works may be considered notable, but a list is fine." Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Misplaced Pages is not WP:TVGUIDE. Everything is well summarized at Bob Hope#Broadcasting. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment – In the article's current form, it's little more than formless list, so the current article is no good. However, I am quite certain the topic of "Bob Hope television specials" is independently notable. IOW, there's no way that these specials didn't receive press/media coverage either individually or in the aggregate... So, I don't know if WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies here, but I suspect there is a viable, notable article on "Bob Hope television specials" (i.e. more than what's simply at Bob Hope#Broadcasting) to be had... It's just that the current version of this article is not that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep and expand. It should have more discussion about the specials' development and impact, but it has information that would be useful when someone with the interest to expand it comes along. WP:NUKEANDPAVE is for irreparably broken pages. Nuking this article would make it less likely for someone to expand it, not more likely. Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. MER-C 03:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

ActOne Group

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

Non notable organization that falls short of WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 17:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete - The test for notability for companies/organizations (and not the founder or any connected persons) as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources passes the test, most are interviews with the founder Janice Bryant Howroyd who already has an article and the information about the company is already contained therein. As such, this topic fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

AppleOne

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

Non notable organization that does not qualify for inclusion per WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: If ActOne Group survives their AfD and this is deemed not notable, might I suggest redirecting this there? Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete even if the main organization is kept, there is no need to redirect every subsidiary. This is one of the things that Google does quite welll, and not really suitable for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Wright (percussion tutor)

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

Non notable percussion tutor who does not satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. He's had a successful career but I'm not seeing any particular notability in Misplaced Pages terms in my searches. In any case, the article is possibly a WP:COPYVIO as it's a very lightly-edited version of this bio on the Royal Northern College of Music website. Neiltonks (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for G12 speedy deletion, as the material was largely copied from here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Opinions are tending towards a consensus that the article can (and should) be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Christina Linhardt

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

Subject of article is a singer that fails WP:SINGER an actor, but fails WP:NACTOR & a director that fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources are 3rd party, reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unfortunately as does not yet have any prominent roles in notable productions with only minor roles or short films credits so does not pass WP:NACTOR at this stage and being a member of an orchestra is not sufficient for the music inclusion guidelines but may be notable in the future if better roles are secured, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Changed to neutral as explained in later comment Atlantic306 (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep John Pack Lambert , isn't the question supposed to be, "Do such sources exist?", not "Are there such sources within the article?" (did you do a Google search on her? What did you find?). And Atlantic306: Passing WP:NACTOR or any other guideline is only a measure of inclusion, not exclusion, and NOT meeting a guideline is not usually grounds for deletion. The question, as I understand it, is this: is the subject covered non-trivially in multiple reliable independent published sources (whether or not included in the actual article)? Did either of you check this? If you did, I think you might be surprised! Also: isn't the Hollywood FAME award evidence of her notability? Also, consider this article on her. A loose necktie (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment @A loose necktie: I see that you created this article. If you are aware of other reliable sources with coverage about this person, it would be useful if you could add them to the article, or at least add links here, rather than saying we might be surprised if we checked. I have been trying to check, and so far I have not found a great deal. In 1997, the Los Angeles Times said that she "made a valiant reading of the difficult Menotti aria" in a performance called "Haunted Cabaret" ; in 2004, she was a member of a satirical anti-Bush group Billionaires for Bush . Neither of those contributes to notability. This article in International Musician is the most significant coverage I've found. I am not sure that it would count as independent, though, as the article is a "Member Profile", indicating that Linhardt is a member of the association of which this is the official journal. However, it gives some information about her education ("graduated in music and vocal arts from the University of Southern California", though with no dates), and some of the groups she has performed in, places she has appeared, etc, which could be (1) added to the article and (2) used in searches to find additional information. She has performed in Germany, so there may well be more German sources. It's not clear that Skope magazine, which has the article you linked to above, is a reliable source, and the article seems rather promotional and makes rather exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims (eg "Her “Classics To Cabaret” show is a favorite among European Royalty and diplomats"). Some of the info in it could be used to search for additional sources, though. As notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, it is not relevant to her notability to mention that she met famous people. So far I am not seeing enough coverage or enough notable performances for her to meet notability guidelines - it would be helpful if you could add more independent, reliable sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, what about this, this, and the multiple newspaper clippings shown here? A loose necktie (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, those two links seem to be a members profile addition and a university aluminus report but the press clippings look more independent so I' m changing to neutral, but the Hollywood Fame awards don't seem to have an article assuming they are not Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Which they are not, of course! They are part of the LA Music Awards as the Hollywood Film, Art, Music, and Entertainment awards. Thank you for changing your vote. A loose necktie (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, A loose necktie. The International Musician profile I had already linked to above - it's a member profile, so not independent. The University of Southern California notice is not independent either, as she studied there. The Hollywood FAME award does not seem to be notable itself, so is not an indication of notability for her. The articles in the Press page of the Circus Sanctuary website do appear to be independent and reliable, and should be added as individual references to the article, with the information they contain. They may be enough for her either to meet WP:GNG, or to show that she meets one or more criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, but at the moment, it's not enough to show that sources exist, as there is no clear claim of notability as recognised by Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. If this AfD is not relisted, I would suggest that this article be draftified, so that the information and sources can be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have now added some German language sources. Along with those in English, I believe I have now met the minimum requirements for article sourcing. I would rather not have the article moved to draft space, and would rather it simply be deleted if others do not agree that the subject meets the WP:GNG by virtue of having been the subject of non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources (whether in the article yet or not). A loose necktie (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep for now WP:NORUSH and NEXIST (reliable sources exist even if not in the article) Here is one that a loose necktie found. Subject of a documentary. WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete ~~appearingly early(ish) career.~~ But not enough sources at present.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC). Removing a remark that appears to be inaccurate, she seems to have been performing since at least 1997 when she was damned with faint praise "Among the other performers... Christina Linhardt made a valiant reading of the difficult Menotti aria." May have been a career killer.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that your honest opinion? Okay... Then how many sources ARE enough, NotButtigieg? Also, what is "appearingly early(ish)"? If you mean you don't think she's had a long enough career yet, isn't that basically WP:ITSTOONEW argumentation? And quickly, for Sandstein: I see you have relisted this for further discussion. Given that it had already been listed once and that a decision to delete did not appear to have community consensus while a clear decision to keep was also not there, couldn't you have called it a no-consensus keep and saved the community further discussion time? Just a thought. Thanks! A loose necktie (talk)

In response, I made a more thorough search and can see very little indication of notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep There definitely seem to be enough independent sources to qualify as notable under GNG. I don't agree that "International Musician" is not an independent source, the profile is a news article in the official journal of an 80,000 member union, this does not constitute a "close affiliation". I'll try to incorporate some of the additional sources into the article in the next day or so.

Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Raju Odedra

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

Lacks notability, fails WP:BIO. The nettv4u site is a wiki, not a reliable source; and there seem to be no indepth sources about him otherwise, just some passing mentions. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Strongly keep: This article should not be deleted at all as it is about a writer of a famous national Hindi entertainment drama serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah and also nominated for a national award.Kitaab Ka Kida (talk)
- Do you have some good sources for this? I note on our article for that show that he is one of 10 writers of that show. Google News only show some passing mentions, and Google only has 32 hits, so it seems as if very little has been written about him in sources I can access (note that sources I can't access are equally acceptable, but I can only judge his notability on what is available to me). Fram (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete - he may be a writer, but the sourcing is terrible ad thus fails WP:ANYBIO. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

SFM Corporate Services

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

Company that offers shell company registration. The sources in the article are mostly self-published, non-reliable or based on interviews and other PR. The only other source I could find is this German Vice article which explains how the process works with the subject as an example but there does not appear to be sufficient significant coverage to pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Regards So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Clearly fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. No consensus to delete,, and after a relist, further good RS was provided that was unchallenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Abu Rafi

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

Lack of reliability from the information provided here. Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep -- I know nothing of the subject, but if it is true, this is an article on an important person. Since we are dealing with a distant period, so that the amount of information available may be modest. The current article does have sources, though it seems to rely too much on a single one, which is unsatisfactory, but not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Historical figure, . I can't read the sources given but there's an excellent English language source in Encyclopaedia Islamica: Bojnurdi, Kazem Musavi and Negahban, Farzin, “Abū Rāfiʿ”, in: Encyclopaedia Islamica, Editors-in-Chief: Wilferd Madelung and, Farhad Daftary. Consulted online on 27 December 2019 . All it took to find this was Google. But there is another person of that name in the period, Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq (Arabic: أبو رافع بن أبي الحُقَيْق‎), one of Mohammed's enemies, so it is necessary to be careful. See: Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Eric Arjes

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

Contested PROD. Still fails WP:GNG with two press releases, a primary source and a wedding notice and several passing mentions of the subject. I also found https://www.riffmagazine.com/mp3/radio-roman-bad-blood-alison-mosshart-eric-arjes/, but that doesn't help. Easily fails WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

KEEP – Does not fail WP:GNG because of significant, non-trivial coverage in RIFF Magazine and SPIN as well as numerous articles mentioning him as a frequent collaborator with Maren Morris who co-wrote the first song she got cut. Updates include several reliable sources that are not just press releases. Also does not fail multiple criteria of WP:MUSICBIO in that the has released two albums on a major label, and been featured on several network television shows and compilation albums. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- A passing mention in SPIN and Riff Magaine is not significant coverage. And no mention of the subject's albums on any label is made so, I don't buy it. Is this because you're the only major contributor to the article? I am assuming good faith, but I would like to be clear that this is not a WP:COI or WP:PAID issue before you continue to discuss or edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  - The subject's band release two EPs on Atlantic in 2009 and 2010, bit no solo works. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    - I am not being paid, nor is this a COI. I have met the guy once at a writer's night, and have heard many people in the Nashville songwriting community talk about his work. I think he is more than a "passing mention" in those articles as they are about a song that features him as the co-artist. He is clearly an established songwriter/producer with significant credits under his name and not just from his band. I think you jumped to delete way too quickly, and I might not be the only contributor if you give the article a chance to exist. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
      - Thanks for the clarification. There is no significant coverage which is what is needed for GNG and again, the albums are not his own, they are his band's, and they're only EPs, not full-legth. I did WP:BEFORE and there's not enough to sustain an article so no, I did not jump to delete too quickly. If this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, then we can create an article with sources that show that the subject is notable. Until then, delete it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
        I disagree that there is no significant coverage. Two of the cited articles are about a song he is featured on not only as writer and producer, but also as co-performer with Mosshart. I also just added one from Billboard magazine that describes how a new song from Gone West "revolves around co-writer Eric Arjes’ buoyant guitar groove." I agree with you that the major label albums were with his band, but he has since been featured on several television shows and compilation albums as a solo performer, writer, and producer, which is where the focus of this article lies and proves him to be notable. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        Then you do not have the same understanding of what WP:SIGCOV says about significant coverage. One paragraph is not significant coverage. Mentioning the subject's name is not significant coverage about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
        I have read through the notability guidelines several times, and I disagree with you. I stand by the article. Wikiwheelmaker (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
        But a few passing mentions of the subject in articles about the subject's bands, or other topics, don't help the subject meet any criteria. These is no significant coverage of the subject in the supplied sources, and I can find none online. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete – The two MusicRow articles on the article appear to be the only coverage this artist has received from a reliable secondary source beyond a passing mention. This is not enough to pass GNG. Cjhard (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ibife Alufohai

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

Not meeting WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Winning a non-notable beauty pageant is not enough to warrant a standalone article. Could not find any kind of substantial coverage on the subject. Passing mentions in reputable sources are not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Being the founder of a notable event like Miss Polo International is enough to pass WP:ARCHITECT. Being discussed at length in reliable sources like Leadership Newspaper here and in Dailymail24 here is enough to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BASIC to warrant a standalone article. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep After a search I feel like subject meets WP:GNG based on the articles cited by User:Nnadigoodluck.Though I couldn't access the leadership.ng source, similar sources provide similar coverage counting towards WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:RS provided by Nnadigoodluck above. Celestina007 (talk) 012:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Smith (headmaster)

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

Non-notable academic per WP:TEACHER. This administrator (educationalist?) is not inherently notable for serving as a headmaster for a secondary school. KidAd (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Note that we have often considered headteachers of major public schools to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC #6, as does Who's Who (in which he features). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete He does not pass any notability criteria. Academic notability guidelines 6 applies to tertiary, not secondary eucation places. Even if it applies to all tertiary places is not clear, but we are not going to apply it to secondary education.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. I agree with JPL and disagree with Necrothesp here: Academic notability only applies to post-secondary educators and administrators, or to people who become notable for scholarly rather than educational or administrative work. We have kept articles on secondary school headmasters before, particularly ones of important schools, but through WP:GNG rather than WP:PROF. So the question should be, is there in-depth coverage of Smith himself, or is it all incidental to coverage of the school? I looked but didn't find enough to convince me, and I'm dubious of the reliability of recent Who's Who publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note that I have merely noted in a comment what AfDs have found in the past. So I don't really see how you can "disagree" with me! The British Who's Who is a notable and reliable publication and is held to be such by both Misplaced Pages and outside scholarly sources; unlike other similarly titled works it is not a vanity publication, and does not solicit entries or charge for them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete A non-notable headmaster who fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was nomination withdrawn. JIP | Talk 15:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Bantha

AfDs for this article:

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

It's a Star Wars topics, so Rescue Squadron and affiliated fanboys, get ready :> Anyway, it's a minor Star War species that seems to fail GNG/NFICTION. As everything related to SW, there are mentions in passing - several reliable sources are present, but they don't discuss this fantasy race per se, only mention in passing in one sentence or so. Then there is a news piece about the real elephant used in original Star Wars movie dying. Now, since I did mention the Rescue Squadron (and it's not like I mind saving articles, if it can be done), I'll point out to https://starwars.fandom.com/Bantha#Behind_the_scenes - this section is the essence of what can be said about this that goes beyond PLOT. But in the end, this is IMHO Star Wars trivia - the film wanted an elephant-like monster, they did with a real elephant, a cute little story about filming of the original movie, but it does not make the fictional race notable. This incident can be discussed perhaps in some article about making of the SW original movie, but do we need a separate article for this prop (because the fictional race clearly fails GNG, so let's face it, it's about a prop, not a sf creature)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures#Bantha. Of the available sources, they are either heavily 'in-universe' type sources, or else extremely trivial/passing coverage. There is not nearly enough to offer standalone notability, and there is a perfectly logical redirect option. Hug 08:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep When I saw the AFD I assumed this article would be all plot summary, as is usually the case in situations like this, but not only is it from a real-world perspective, it is cited by verifiable secondary reliable sources, which speak to the subject's notability. I also suspect the article could be expanded upon and fleshed out further, so I think it's worth keeping. It's also worth pointing out there was a previous AFD for this subject that resulted in a keep after the article was revised to reflect its notability and a consensus was reached to keep it, and although that certainly doesn't mean we can't discuss this again in AFD, I'll just note that notability is not temporary, so if the subject was notable back then, it's still notable now. — Hunter Kahn 14:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I will say, though, that there are some very strange referencing issues with this article as it stood when the AFD was announced. I'm planning to make a few edits/improvements and will try to clean that up. I've fixed the referencing issues now, and I've started some expansions to the article, including the addition of "Biology and appearance", "Concept and creation", and "Reception" sections, as well as expansions to the Production section. I'll add that in my brief amount of editing here I've seen there are many more reliable sources out there that could be used to expand this article. I honestly haven't even scratched the surface yet. I'll try to expand it a bit more before this AFD is through, but my keep vote stands, and if anything I feel even more strongly about it. — Hunter Kahn 16:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

HK, whether it's kept or not, I have to say this looks MUCH better than what I nominated a day ago: . I will have to review the sources etc. when I have time so consider whether this should be withdrawn or not, right now I have no opinion except it is much longer (and with refs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have plans for further additions, and there are some other books and offline source I'm hoping to hunt down at some libraries and/or bookstores eventually. If the article is kept, I might try to keep improving it up to GA status... — Hunter Kahn 18:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep and I am not a Star Wars fan. The nominator seems to equate fans of anything as a lower breed of editor going by his adhoms when the reality is that much of Misplaced Pages was built by fans whether they be fans of classical music, James Bond films, European history, the renaissance and so on and so on. In this case there is plenty of real world content reliably referenced and the article is being actively improved as described above so to delete it would be dogmatic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, While the article has a plethora of sources, they are either only brief mentions, are not independent, or are 'top x' lists. As it stands, this article does not pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk 07:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is not entirely accurate. Only a few are lists and only one (the StarWars.com source) could be argued to be non-independent, and many if not most of the other sources (among the books and news articles) go well beyond brief mentions. — Hunter Kahn 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I was surprised to discover an article on such an arcane piece of popular culture, but even more surprised that it was actually half-decent, and actually somewhat informative on the use of animals in cinema. I've not checked the sources, but prima facie they seem reasonable. (Full disclosure: I cannot reasonably dispute the charge that I am a Star Wars fan.) —PLUMBAGO 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect per Hugsyrup. Miniapolis 23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect - The topic deserves to be mentioned somewhere, but the reception is quite weak for a stand alone. List of Star Wars creatures is currently a very poor article in itself, but I think it could be heavily refocused into a more real-world based topic discussing only those that have enough real world attention. Some of the sources would be worth including there. TTN (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I hope it's been noted that the article has recently been undergoing expansions since this AFD began, and that I've committed to continuing those efforts if it's not deleted, hopefully to GA status. I also want to note that I haven't put much focus on the Reception status yet; I wanted to start with the other sections because I think they are a better indication of the subject's notability. Anybody could fill an article like this with a lengthy Reception section just by quoting review blurbs or whatever. I expect the Reception to be expanded as part of my efforts, as well as the rest of the article... — Hunter Kahn 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep thanks to Hunter Kahn's well-sourced and interesting additions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures#Bantha, since it already exists there. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to show they pass notability criteria.Onel5969 12:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep as above. Evidently some scholarly and journalistic interest; it's not just fanzines and blogs. Discussion in The Science of Star Wars and the various respectable newspapers cited are both good. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Star Wars creatures per TTN and others. It would be much more appropriate as part of the list, which is potentially notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as a redirect but I was asked to reconsider by some editors involved since the article has been expanded since the nom. Relisting in order to get a further input and to stay neutral on my side regarding the final outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Better than most. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of references found. JIP | Talk 20:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect per User:Hugsyrup.--Darwinek (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question for those voting to redirect: As I've indicated, I've done some substantial edits and additions to this article compared to how it looked when this AFD began. Some of it is about the fictional character, but much of it is also real-world perspective, such as concept/creation, design, filming/production, critical reception, etc. If this were to be redirected, what do you suggest happens to all this new content? Should it be merged with the list article, or simply deleted altogether? It seems to me that neither options makes sense, as the latter would be the unnecessary removal of content cited by reliable sources, and the former would make the Bantha's entry on the list too long and would warrant a WP:SPINOFF back to the main article anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to just keep the article where it is? — Hunter Kahn 02:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep These sorts of articles are often just WP:FANCRUFT. But this article is actually quite solid, and built on a whopping 82 sources. There is a lot of real world refs, not just in universe stuff. I reject the trivia argument, and see no other good reason to delete it. I also think that redirecting is a poor choice, as that would make a WP:COATRACK. Captain Eek ⚓ 22:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- An excessive merge could lead to a coatrack, although given that WP:COATRACK is primarily concerned with pushing POVs, it’s rather hard to imagine the same problem arising by simply merging content about a Star Wars creature to a list of Star Wars creatures. But that’s by the by, because we’re talking about a redirect and I simply don’t see how you can argue that a redirect creates a coatrack article. If, subsequently, the list has excessive Bantha-related content added to it, then that can be dealt with on that page, in the normal way. Hug 08:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  Hugsyrup, Oops bad wording on my part, I meant to say merge not redirect. But I also think a redirect would be poor. This article is currently well written and sourced, and I believe meets GNG. The proposed redirect is to a paragraph that is quite questionable. I don't see how redirecting to something that is of worse quality helps to improve the encyclopedia. Captain Eek ⚓ 19:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect if and only if a corresponding section is included somewhere.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep Whatever it’s state at the start of the AfD, this article has developed into a well-written article with many reliable sources. A solid keep per WP:HEY. —{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw. That's how to write about fictional content. My hats off to HK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bryn Chapman

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, and WP:PAGEANT* John from Idegon (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. Don't we have a level of presumption for pageant winners? And isn't she south of that? John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I think WP:NMODEL is related.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Help! There's an ancient previous discussion on this, so this needs to be renamed. See here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, SharabSalam. One more favor? Could you list this in an opera catagory? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I have added it to the Musicians and bands category. I can't find a category for Opera deletion discussions.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Any notability criteria for pageant winners was rejected. However the consensus was that state level winners are not notable for such, what failed was an attempt to claim any national level winners were default notable. There is not enough coverage here to show notability. A few years ago many of these articles on non=notable pageant winners were removed, however many were kept as well more from lack of organized action than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment looking at the sources here I do not see any actual 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Not notable and did not meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Paul Atreides. RL0919 (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Muad'Dib

AfDs for this article:

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

This mess of an article (it is effectively a List of various things named Muad'Dib (an animal, a person, a religious term) also fails GNG/NFICTION/PLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to Paul Atreides. Thank you, thank you, I unsuccessfully tried to have this "article" redirected nine years ago on grounds I thought were valid. I'm one of the biggest Dune fans editing Misplaced Pages and I don't think this "topic" is worthy of it own article.— TAnthony 05:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Paul Atreides as per TAnthony.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Merge to Paul Atreides. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to a section of Dune. One critter from a notable book.--23mason (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Paul Atreides. The mouse and moon formation have zero importance in the series AFAIK (unless there was a post-Frank Herbert addition titled The Mouse on the Dune Moon in June). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge to Paul Atreides. --causa sui (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Dune Fremen

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

None of those characters seem to have been subject to any literary analysis. Some of them redirect to articles that have been redirected to List of Dune secondary characters, where this could be merged, but I am not sure if that list is notable either. There is also List of Dune secondary characters. At the very least we don't need three separate lists of Dune characters, one at most should be enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete We do not need to have four different lists of Dune characters. ―Susmuffin 05:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - again, more fancruft.Onel5969 12:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Completely redundant and unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom.— TAnthony 17:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete and redirect to Dune (franchise)#Plot arc. RL0919 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ix (Dune)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional planet with no evidence of passing GNG. PRIMARY sources, PLOT only content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Minor planet in the series.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete The Dune novels only contain one potentially notable planet. The others have not been discussed or studied by journalists or scholars. I have also noticed that there is a significant amount of "Dunecruft" that should be deleted. ―Susmuffin 05:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Dune (franchise), where this topic is already discussed in the context of the series' anti-technology themes.— TAnthony 05:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Nix to Ix per nom. Frank Herbert didn't set any of the action on the planet as far as I can recall. Apparently, it is only of significance in his son's writings. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Dune (franchise), per TAnthony. Goustien (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Not sure a redirect is appropriate, since I couldn't find it mentioned in the article suggested (although I did simply skim the article). If a redirect is decided, it should be targeted to the specific section of the article. Onel5969 12:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I should have been more specific and noted that I would redirect to Dune (franchise)#Plot arc, where this topic is discussed.— TAnthony 15:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 09:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

TechnoAlpin

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

There doesn't seem to be anything besides press releases about this online or in books. Also, while it doesn't have much to do with deletion, there seems to have been some COI editing on the article recently. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promotion. HighKing 14:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was redirect to John C. Malone. RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

500-channel universe

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

Single sentence article, basically just a quote from one person from a long time ago. Reference leads to a website called manta.com, instead of the Advertising Age editorial it's supposed to; the Manta website seems to some kind of Yellow Pages/business listing site. Article has been largely unedited since creation 9 years ago. Mirza Ahmed (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This doesn't even seem to be a topic. At best, as a second choice, redirect to Cable television. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete, although it is reliably sourced and it is appropriate to have a one sentence inclusion into John Malone page. However, it's obscure enough term that I don't think it merits a redirect. So, my input would be to migrate a sentence + source to that page, then DELETE this page.
Redirect to John C. Malone. I have merged the relevant contents already. Graywalls (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to John C. Malone; there's an external link to it here, and while that's not in of itself a reason to keep this I think there's some value in letting it stay as a redirect and not breaking the link. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz 18:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

SPC XL

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

Software appears to be NN. I am not able to locate the two supposed references in the article or see how in-depth they cover it, nor are they particularly reliable. Further searches for sources turn up only sales links: , nothing relevant at all , or only brief, trivial mentions . Seraphimblade 03:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 19:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ubald Klug

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I should note that a WP:BEFORE shows subject has been discussed in passing but never in detail nor with in-depth. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Vivo V2

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

What makes this product (phone) notable? I couldn't find any review in an outlet that seems reliable and not just blog advert or a rewritten press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The Vivo V1 was covered pretty significantly, so I just figured it's successor should have a page as well. I dunno. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:NOTINHERITED. I am not seeing any significant coverage of the V2 model, but if you see it, please link it here and ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 94rain 04:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nominator. I tried finding some sources myself but failed. But there seems to be a lot in different languages. If anybody finds a couple in different languages, I'll change my vote. Also, reviews of it might just be covered up by all the product sites selling it. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Right, but we can't assume WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sources should be the start point of an article, not an eventual goal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Can't find any non-trivial or acceptable sources to establish notability for the device. Note that Vivo devices are largely absent in any English-speaking market I can think of (except for maybe India?) so English-language sources are likely to be few and far between. Given that the device is approaching 4 years old, I don't see that changing in the future. –Erakura 01:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment: Looking again at the article, it mentions Verizon Wireless, a US carrier; I'm fairly knowledgeable regarding the US market phone industry and I'm not aware that VZW has ever carried or supported a Vivo product. So I also question the veracity of this article's content as-is. –Erakura 01:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Dagor Dagorath

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

Another minor event from Tolkien verse's Silmarillion, not in movies or such. PRIMARY sources, PLOT only, fails GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete I was expecting to find reliable sources that could be used to improve this article. Instead, I only found a few brief mentions. ―Susmuffin 04:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There also seems a lot of OR in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete anything of worth on this can more than adequately be discussed in an article on the Similrillion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to History of Arda. Goustien (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - again, zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 19:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ritchie333 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Jessa Rhodes

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet WP:GNG; was previously deleted and does not seem more notable now. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep Take the industry specific blabber out of it and it’s gotta count for something that business publications CNBC and Forbes (did a whole article on her) have pointed out her success. Trillfendi (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete not enough 3rd party, indepdent coverage in reliable publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Trillfendi, she seems to have international notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
1 is dead

2 is an interview and therefore not independent

3 is also an interview in the context of a lifestyle piece about porn

4 literally says she did an AMA on Reddit and quotes from it. I

None of this is a GNG pass and no other guidelines are met. Spartaz 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
They are not straight interviews or straight primary sources disqualifying notability. The journalists in each article synthesizes the information and writes about the person. Journalists from more reputable sources are ethically required to do fact checking and do not just take everything the person says at face value. Sure, the feature may be based on the journalist interviewing the person but there is a reason why they did so. (noticing the person aka notability) Further connection problems is not a disqualifier of a source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: sources presented are insufficient for WP:BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete since subject does not meet WP:NACTOR or even WP:GNG. The links proffered as "sources" above are not much help. There is a piece on Rhodes in an Italian website, caused by and focusing on a marketing gimmick ("the winner can spend a fiery night with her", etc), which brings her as close to WP:BLP1E as one can get; there's a sociologist interviewing Rhodes here, in Uproxx, the article being about the life of a typical porn actress and not Rhodes herself, as is clearly stated ("Today’s up-and-coming porn starlet is a hustler of different proportions...Take for example Jessa Rhodes") - incidentally, the text's not making us very comfortable when it ends with a promotion of its interviewee, i.e. "Visit Jessa Rhodes on Twitter and Instagram at... also buy her charitable T-shirt for Profane Clothing", etc; there's a Forbes report on the 2014 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and AVN Awards show, with our subject name-dropped once; and a small write up in the Russian Lenta.ru about her reddit Q&A session, a typical piece of blather. One has to dig far and wide for sources but, in the end, one comes up with nothing much: The subject is simply not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Draft. May need time to incubate. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan#Karl D. Gregory Cooperative House. Opinion is divided between merge and delete. Redirect is a compromise that allows editors to decide whether anything is worth merging from history. Sandstein 21:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Karl D. Gregory Cooperative House

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

Dorms and frat houses are usually not notable unless they are on the National Register of Historic Places. This building is not on that register, and does not appear to pass WP:GNG either. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: It is very common for dorms and frat houses to be covered in a list of university buildings, or a narrower list of university dormitories and perhaps other housing. See Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States for many examples, including a number about housing alone.

I mostly write about National Register-listed places, and it is nice that the deletion nominator is aware that such listing usually means a place is notable. But by far most notable places are not on the National Register; what matters more fundamentally is whether a place meets our wp:GNG general notability guideline by the existence of reliable sources about them. Did the deletion nominator perform wp:BEFORE? They did not say so in the nomination. --Doncram (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply @User:Doncram, I did perform my BEFORE but just forgot to include my findings in the article. Pretty much the only information I can find on this topic are social media mentions, information from the ICC's website (which, since the ICC is the sponsoring organization of this house, I consider to be basically self-published), a few short paragraphs in a Michigan Daily article which describes a number of the ICC's houses (which suggests to me that the article proves notability for the ICC, but not for individual houses), and the Russian Misplaced Pages (not RS). This leads me to the conclusion that this house fails WP:GNG, which is why I checked to see if it was on the National Register of Historic Places. Hog Farm (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge tentatively. There is no way this should be outright deleted, because merger into higher level article Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan is possible; there is a section for it there, which just directs to this article. At least a summary can appear there if this article is not Kept outright. However, I think maybe this should be kept; offhand it seems like sources would exist about this; i hope others can find and discuss sources to save this. But again, deletion is not the answer. --Doncram (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete This is not encyclopedic content in the first place, whether as a separate article or part of a list or merged into an article like student life at ... or even the main university page. --it is more suitable for the university's web page than an encyclopedia. ~~Yjrtr jsd nrrm s~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
"Yjrtr jsd nrrm s [lsvce"? Is that some acronym like "ymmv" (your mileage may vary)?
(typo from being one place to the right of where I thought I was on the keyboard it translates as "there has been a place") DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact remains that Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan is a sourced article in Misplaced Pages, which covers this house, and it is reasonable to merge/redirect the house article there. DGG would apparently prefer to merge less, and/or call it a "redirect" decision, but I see no reasoning here valid for outright deletion of the topic. I think it is reasonable for Misplaced Pages to provide something for readers searching on this topic. --Doncram (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Right. I support listings of that sort, but not individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge per Doncram, however note that the target article already has an "too much intricate detail" tag. Merge should be selective and only include a overview (with sources). MB 02:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete article lacks any indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge to Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan, which can absorb pertinent info for this building Djflem (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ibrahim Olugbade

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

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO & does not satisfy WP:42. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Online Blockchain

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

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

Fails WP:CORP. Specifically there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The only instance of coverage in a potentially reliable source was run-of-the-mill/routine coverage in a single Bloomberg article of the stock-market price increasing when the name of the company changed. There is coverage in the Daily Express, but per WP:RSP the Daily Express is not considered a reliable source. Whilst the company is listed on AIM, this is not a major stock exchange comparable to NYSE and as such this is not a WP:LISTED case.

Additionally, the article fails WP:PROMO as it is clearly promotional in content and was created by an apparent potential WP:COI account that has primarily edited articles related to Clem Chambers and his companies. There is no point in the edit history that is free of these WP:PROMO issues so WP:TNT applies. FOARP (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting if a firmer consensus than a soft delete can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - It's difficult to search for such a generic name, but the available sources don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV even if we ignore the reliability issues. –dlthewave ☎ 02:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I appreciate people may have been busy roasting turkeys and peeling sprouts, but I think the discussion has run out of steam. (Like the sprouts). Ritchie333 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Spindal

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

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

To quote an earlier edit by Shhhnotsoloud, "this disambiguation page disambiguates no titles". Everything on the page would normally go under 'See also' as possible misspellings. A search for articles containing 'Spindal' brings up a couple of minor, partial-title mentions. Leschnei (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this is one of those rare cases where it actually does makes sense to have a dab page for a misspelling. "Spindal" is a very plausible misspeling for Spindel, Spindle and Spindale. The search engine isn't able to auto-correct in this case, and the standard solution – creating the respective misspelt redirects for each of the three articles – will not work: we can create something like Spindal (surname) and Spindal, North Carolina, but we can't create anything suitable for Spindle as it's a dab page (we can't have Spindal (disambiguation) redirect to it as that page does not disambiguate "Spindal"). There is one article, Biomega (manga), which has a paragraph about a fictional character named "Kahdal Spindal" and that may be added to the dab page (though in my opinion that does not constitute substantial content worth including); the only other mention of "Spindal" is at Azad Zal, and that's almost certainly a typo for "spindle". – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

KeepIf it was a plausible misspelling for one word, no-one would query a redirect. Because it's a plausible misspelling for three words, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 12:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete. This disambiguation page disambiguates no articles that could be called "Spindal". (My previous speedy delete nomination was reverted). Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary: we need not accommodate every possible misspelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Fold, spindal and mutilate per nom. No such animal, and the number of possible misspellings of all article titles is enormous. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still warranting some discussion for this fairly edge case, given the near-balance (as Uanfala's reads as a Keep !vote)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I can see how people who might get to this topic and having a good redirect is helpful. Keep in mind that we have WP:NOTPAPER, so there's no need to delete a useful disambiguation page just because we don't have other useful disambiguation pages. Michepman (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Except a disambiguation page with zero legitimate entries is not a disambiguation page. WP:ZERODABS is even stronger than WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Compromise redirect to Spindle (a dab page) with {{R from typo}}. If its purpose is as a typo, direct to the existing dab page. If some of Spindal's contents should be merged there, go for it. czar 01:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Two of the three entries can easily be merge there, but probably not Spindale – it's not very similar to "Spindle" and so it's likely someone will remove it from there sooner or later. Also, Spindle is not a small dab page (it's got about 20 entries), so a reader who makes the typo when looking for either Spindale or Spindel will not be served well. I think deletion is better than redirecting (though of course, I still believe keeping is best). – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an unusual and edge case - as pointed out redirecting from a misspelling is completely uncontroversial but our disambiguation policy does not cover what to do in cases where there are multiple plausible misspellings. Given that the current level of participation can only justify a no consensus close I think it meets the necessary standard for a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Joan Gardner (Broadway actress)

Joan Gardner (Broadway actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable actress failing WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR & not satisfying WP:42 Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep seems to me to actually pass WP:GNG with coverage provided in the article. Admittedly low coverage, but it's a stub. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I've added information from Newspapers.com. She was a bit of a sensation there for a while. I'm seeing some evidence of her in society pages as Mrs. Edwin T. Hall in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but there's actually a few different Mrs. Edwin T. Halls, it seems and I'm not sure which is which. Would be interesting to find out. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep as, per Paul McDonald, notability wasn't that questionable in the first place and as, per Megalibrarygirl, there was more information (and accessible online) out there. I am going to a library to access Variety and other entertainment archives in a few weeks; if this discussion is not closed as keep soon, please give me more time to find more sources on the subject. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Return of the Mack#Nevada version.. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nevada (DJ)

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

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

Non notable DJ failing WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

~~comment~~ Redirect to Return of the Mack#Nevada version. I found a few mentions of Nevada, but all in the context of the one song that charted, and no coverage of the person. There are no sources to fill in a basic biography. The song is more notable than the person. ~~I don't have time to do a BEFORE right now, but I wanted to note that it seems to meets WP:SINGER by having a single chart on ARIA.~~ Schazjmd (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Has a lead single that successfully charted on multiple charts. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep The charting song is what makes the artist notable, “The Mack” is a big song and charted in many countries. That should get the artist a page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@CheatCodes4ever - So what you’re saying is keep the page? Foxnpichu (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if a song peaks at number 9 on the ARIA, that means the song is notable enough to have a page. It also should get the artist a page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@CheatCodes4ever - You may wanna add "Keep" in bold at the start of your comment then. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I just realised that. Sorry. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to Return of the Mack#Nevada version. It is unusual for a cover version to be notable but the performer not; but it is not impossible, and this is such a case. Notability is not WP:INHERITed. There is no evidence at all that Nevada gets anywhere near passing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. Narky Blert (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to Return of the Mack#Nevada version. Our guidelines indicate that an artist who has a release that reaches the charts and/or shifts a lot of units is likely to be notable. However, in this case, the release is a cover of a song which is notable, and the original artist, who is notable, appears on the cover. When looking for reliable sources I found little which dealt with Nevada in depth, though I found this which talks about Nevada's cover in terms of the original artist, Mark Morrison, which underscores that it is the song and the original artist which appear to be the notable aspects here. SilkTork (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 19:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sue Dodge

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

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG, WP:42 & WP:SINGER Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete non-notable -- the possiblity of redirection to Spear Famoily is nt supported by the availabel sources. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

The 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. Michig (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The D'Ambrosio Twins

The D'Ambrosio Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources are weak and the article has too much unnecessary information to make it seem like the subjects are more notable than they are. One such example of this is the list of awards, most of which are lesser notable awards. Andise1 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Needs a lot of improvement but doesn't deserve deletion. Unless the twins are leaving the public life, they will continue accruing references and the deleted article would simply be remade at a later day. FLY 01:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with multiple prominent roles in notable productions such as television series and have also received a number of nominations for Young Artists Awards which is a notable award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Article might need further improvement, but for sure, it passes WP:ANYBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

The 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, basically as a broad concept page indexing large land vehicles to which the term has been applied. Further discussion about the exact contents appropriate for the page can be carried out on the article talk page. BD2412 T 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Landship

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

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

The entire article appears to be original research. The lone source does not use the term "landship", and there is no indication that it's a commonly used term for a "large vehicle that travels on land". A Google Books search indicates that the primary topic for the term is actually Landship (Barbados), with some sources also discussing tanks in the context of the Landship Committee. There also doesn't seem to be a different common name for such "large vehicles" that the page could be moved to; the alternative name "landcraft" given in the article seems to see even less use. Beyond the title issue, the content is a hodgepodge of unrelated information about different kinds of vehicles that appear to satisfy various editors' ideas of "large land vehicles". Unsalvageable. Even if "large land vehices" were a suitable topic for a Misplaced Pages article under some title, it would be easier to start over from scratch than to try and rewrite this page. Huon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: question on the refdesk

Note: Editors here may also be interested in Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 19#Category:Landships, a closely related discussion.

Delete For the reasons laid out above. The article appears to be an effort to force-fit discussion of various large mobile structures into a term that is not part of the English idiom. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I have largely revamped the entire page to make it more relevant in a historical context and influence in fictional work. Still a work in progress, but I have made it less of an 'original research'. I have pretty much wrote down the evolution of the Landship concept, and why these concepts failed and why its euphemism for large military war machine/superweapon faded at the end of the Second World War. I also wrote down how the failed landship project eventually influence and gave rise to modern armored fighting vehicles such as the tank.42Grunt (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: an interesting article that has a lot of room for improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep The objections seem to be about the name, more than the content. Although both "landship" and also "land leviathan" (and "leviathan" was regularly applied to ships) have a long pedigree from 1900–1918 in both fiction and military thought. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The article has been edited heavily since I nominated it, but the basic problems remain. Those of the new sources I checked either refer to tanks or do not mention the term "landship". There is no source provided that discusses the general concept of "a large vehicle that travels exclusively on land", a concept that is ill-defined (what's "large"?) and not shown to be independently notable. While it may be possible to establish notability of "large land vehicle" as an article topic, this article would still be original research, particularly original synthesis, top to bottom. It currently violates one of our core content policies, and none of the "keep" opinions addresses this problem or shows that it could be cured short of scrapping the entire page, despite the recent rewrite, and starting over from scratch. "WP:ITSINTERESTING" is an argument that should be given no weight. For bonus points, spot the blatant error of fact right in the lead. Huon (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The lead sentence (my emphasis), "Because of their large size, their use on land is seen as impractical due to terrain obstacles, and soft ground that cannot support such large weight. Such problems are non-existent on water and in space", highlights why they don't exist and why there's no corresponding term. Large-scale mining machinery is introduced, elsewhere, but could become an expanded article. Such machinery is designed for a very limited range of action and wouldn't be considered to be a "ship"—capable of roaming long distances. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Not one mention of Simon Stevin in the article? There are some encyclopedic topics associated with "Landship": Prairie schooner and British tanks (Merriam-Webster), and marginally related that Misplaced Pages may or may not have content for: Land sailing, "Simon Stevin" landship, The Land Ironclads. ~~Is a DAB at this title most appropriate?~~ WP:DABRELATED says not to do that.—eric 04:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect to Tanks in the British Army#British development for now. The source that sets the widest scope for a "Landship" article i've found so far is Fuller, J.F.C (1920). Tanks in the great war, 1914-1918., and i don't think that is enough to take the topic beyond "History of the Tank". The concept behind H.M. Landship Centipede and navy involvement obviously came for somewhere tho, and even survived past the war in some way. I wouldn't be surprised at all if something is found that could widen the scope and justify a standalone article.—eric 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect as described by EricR above. AFACT, the only meaning of landship is as here, which was an historical name for tanks, but everything else in the article is basically WP:SYNTH and otherwise made up. --Jayron 32 17:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect as per above. The Churchill-era early days of tank development are AFAIK the only topic where that term is actually used, and it should redirect there. This article is an interesting production, but unfortunately the fundamental WP:SYNTH structure makes it unsuitable for the encyclopedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - If you don't like the name, just change it. Deleting an entire article that is filled with sources and encyclopedic information solely because the name is not good is not appropriate. Michepman (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's the name and the topic combined. We should be able to write a short introductory section that is verifiable and together with the title would set the scope of an article. What there is so far would exclude almost all the current article's content.—eric 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - At Talk:Landship#False premise for article the suggestion has been made by the nominator to "move Landship (Barbados) to this title and add a hatnote along the lines of "For early tank development see Landship Committee and British heavy tanks of World War I#Development." All the tank-related information should have a place in one or another of those articles." The editor notes, "As an aside, the Barbados Landship originated in the 1800s and predates the use of the term for tanks by quite a bit." I endorse this move. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional time may yield a consensus solution, which may include renaming or adjusting the scope.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Move proposal

~~User:Huon, User:42Grunt, User:Jack Upland, User:Andy Dingley, User:Jayron32, User:EricR, User:Elmidae, User:Michepman I'm looking for your concurrence with the idea to:~~

Move any cited element of this article covering a topic, such as tanks or excavators to the relevant article (assuming that the information isn't already covered there).

Move Landship (Barbados) to this title.

Add a hatnote to the top material: "For early tank development see Landship Committee and British heavy tanks of World War I#Development."

This should avoid the WP:SYNTH problem that currently exists.
~~Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)~~

I no longer support my own proposal because the social group is properly called, "Barbados Landship", as described in my comment, below. HopsonRoad (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please post your support/non-support of the Move proposal below here:

I'm on board with the splitting-up of various vehicle-related bits to the respective articles. I hadn't heard of the Barbados Landship before, whereas I had heard of the early tank thing; and I suspect that it may turn out not to be the primary meaning, if one were to run the numbers. So I'm not sure about the proposed move. But both being fairly arcane topics, I don't feel too strongly about that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Note an earlier comment, "..., the Barbados Landship originated in the 1800s and predates the use of the term for tanks by quite a bit". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Older != primary topic, or not necessarily; otherwise computer would land you at people who twiddle abaci. But as I said, not much concerned about that part. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Support I'm an outside editor to this point that just read through this entire discussion, and this proposal seems to be a good conclusion to this rather lengthy AFD. Even if the landship committee was the more notable topic, it wouldn't really make sense to move an article titled "landship committee" to just "landship." Sam-2727 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion of the delete Landship proposal below here:

Maybe a WP:DAB?
Landship Committee

Barbados Landship

Sea Scout landships

Prairie schooner (??? dubious Merriam-Webster entry)

—eric 21:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment I see that the Barbados Landship appears as "Barbados Landship" on its Facebook page and that's how it is styled in news reports, e.g. "Independence Parade Showcases Barbadian Culture" and "First 'Site of Memory' unveiled - The Landship" (see text). Therefore the Landship (Barbados) article should be renamed Barbados Landship, as its lead suggests, and not assume this name. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Landship (Barbados)#Rename: "Barbados Landship". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Therefore, the eric WP:DAB alternative works for me. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"Landship (Barbados)" is now Barbados Landship. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've completely lost the overview of who proposes what here, but the above DAB approach works for me too. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation Proposal

Comment and Keep - I have turned the page into a disambiguation page instead of making it a redirect to Landship (Barbados), as there are multiple vehicles and concepts either used the term landship or paraphrased as such. There is also the fact that the world of fiction has several examples in which the entire setting is dominated by landships.42Grunt (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Provisional keep – The redirect idea only works for those entries that have actually been called a "landship" in their supporting reliable sources. Without that the remaining entries are WP:SYNTHESIS. I see no evidence for any but the few, mentioned, above to remain. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The only things that I can see disambiguation to are: British heavy tanks of World War I#Development—initially called "landships", the Landship Committee—the British naval committee that initiated the study of tanks ("landships" at the time) and became known as the "Tank Supply Committee", and the Barbados Landship—the Barbadan cultural society. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Amin Mehraein
AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Amin Mehraein

Articles for deletion/Amin Mehraein (2nd nomination)

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

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

I don't believe this person meets GNG. Most citations seem self-published. CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CookieMonster755 ✉ 00:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755: you've found the work of one of the more dedicated sockpuppeteers on Misplaced Pages. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 12:27, 18 December 2019

Move proposal

Please post your support/non-support of the Move proposal below here:

Further discussion of the delete Landship proposal below here:

Disambiguation Proposal