Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 5

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pierce (ice hockey) (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the Central Hockey League is one where a player has to satisfy NHOCKEY #3 (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star) to get a Wikipedia article, not one where he's entitled to have one the moment he skates onto the ice, but this article neither claims nor sources any indication that Pierce clears that bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montada (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)

Kept by way of no consensus in 2006; it's high time to revisit. Plenty of the delete votes in that argument were well-argued. I'm not sure the keeps hold up as well - many were based on Alexa rank, or information from the site itself.

What we don't have is independent sources substantially about the topic, in either English or Arabic (although I admit I'm searching Arabic by translation). We can't redirect to Remal IT, because that's a redlink. There's nowhere else I can think of to redirect this to. Without independent sources, we can't retain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertisement of a non-notable site. Also I speak Arabic and I am an Arab and I have never heard of this site. It is very clear that it is an advertisement. --SharabSalam (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Less Than Jake. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Demakes (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)

Not independently notable. Consensus had been to redirect (as mis-capitalization of name) to the band this person is a part of. Redirect was turned into this page. Not independently notable outside of Less than Jake. Hog Farm (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Chris DeMakes (who is the same person) redirects to Less than Jake and does not have a page of his own. Hog Farm (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to the band's website, his last name is spelled with an uppercase "M" in "DeMakes", and googling with that spelling has already been redirected there, per previous AfD. Although he has a solo career, coverage of such reflect his notability as a member of Less Than Jake. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to Less Than Jake). I can find no reliable media coverage of his solo work, and everything found is in conjunction with the main band. The fact that he has performed solo can be briefly mentioned at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Less Than Jake as a reasonable variant on captialisation. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to R. Parthiban. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Keerthana (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 child actor, unsourced, only acted in one film. Nepotism. Fails WP:Notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She won an award for the film as best child actress in 2003. Does that make her notable? References added

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT: To the personal life section of R. Parthiban. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Could be an indication of a child actor. scope_creep^Talk 23:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her popular show or to her parents. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article fails to establish notability. The two reception references are trivial, extremely focused "Top X" lists, and not sure if the first one is even a reliable source. TTN (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. We still had a few left, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:GNG. Page is mostly WP:FAN and the "cultural impact" section is just one or two sentences that are not even sourced. lullabying (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skyquake (Transformers) (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 to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and needs info on reception for it to be notable, otherwise it's just WP:FAN. lullabying (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article seems to be a POV coatrack for editors to point to societal changes as "moral breakdown" of the society, with the online sources not generally using that term (and those that do, like philforhumanity.com, not being reliable sources.) Google Scholar uses of the term "moral breakdown" are generally addressing an event for an individual, not a society, or are discussing the analysis of morals. Non-scholar invocations that I am finding are using it as a term of POV attack on a society and are not an analysis of what constitutes one in a way that would contribute to notability as a topic. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft. Definitely something to include about tendencies to use the phrase, but ought not be misrepresented as a known area of study. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparently an inappropriate Synthesis_of_published_material. It lacks in-depth coverage in sources. Dimadick (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Moral decay, which is mentioned in the lede, has been widely used for hundreds of years, and all but the first example illustrate. Anarchangel (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the sources used actually reference "moral decay", or will moving it still leave it the same sort of POV original research spectacle that it is now? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books results for moral decline and Google Books results for moral decay seem almost equally populated, which is to say, both of them have been widely discussed since the middle of the 20th Century. Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should of course be rewritten at some point, but it is a valid topic for Wikipedia. I would prefer to it remaining in mainspace. If the consensus becomes that the current article should be hidden in some way, I would like to exhort the closer and voters to take all available steps to prioritize the process of its rebirth. Anarchangel (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rewrite the lede sentence as:

"Moral decay is a value judgement about society as a whole, that sees a degradation or loss of moral values."

The article gets bogged down around the part where it tries to distinguish the correctness of a judgement of moral decay and the incorrectness of a moral panic. Ideally, we need to be saying that they both are ethical assessments, without regard to being correct or not, and that is something that moral panic also fails to do. Anarchangel (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Davis (juggler) had an act where he would say he was juggling George Washington's ax... over the years they had merely replaced the handle. And the blade. But it occupied the same space as George Washington's ax.

That sounds to me like what you're proposing - an article with a different title, and different content. At which point, it is not this article. It may be a worthwhile one, but we need not save this one for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be impractical, but it is in every other way the best solution and what should happen, and this title should link to the new article. Which isn't to say that what you propose is not true; they will doubtless both have the same end result, seeing as WP is unplanned and voluntary. Anarchangel (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't see how Moral decay or Moral breakdown are any different from Decadence. Is this turning into a series of forks? Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't read any further, as I am now 2 for 2 paragraphs distinguishing the concepts: "among the members of the elite", and may imply "censure or acceptance" Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't meet Wikipedia standards in its current state. If it can be put in a sandbox and worked on, then perhaps that should be pursued. 23:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt. Milokan (talk • contribs)

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Pakistan-related articles (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)

An alphabetical list of Pakistan-related articles. This might have made very good sense in the earliest days of wikipedia, but it's difficult to see why we should continue to keep it around. It is not complete: with links to 1,500 articles, it covers only about 6% of the approximately 24,000 articles currently tracked by Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan. And the articles included are not in any way representative as a selection of "important" topics (something that's anyway done by Outline of Pakistan) – there are no entries for either the current president Arif Alvi or for his predecessor Mamnoon Hussain, there are no entries for big cities like Gujranwala or Mansehra, or for the country's 3rd and 4th most spoken languages (Sindhi and Saraiki).

This index is so incomplete that the harm it does in misleading readers far outweighs any conceivable benefit it might still provide. But even if it were to be replaced with a fully up-to-date list, the result would not be desirable: the complete article would be around half a megabyte big – even though that's still below the hard technical limit on article size, it exceeds the recommended upper bounds several times over.

If someone needs this list for any use at all, it should be moved into the project space. And if the article's title is deemed to be an eligible search term, then it could be turned into a redirect to either Outline of Pakistan or to Category:Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons underlined under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles. Ajf773 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and India discussion. J947 ^(c), at 00:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waverider (Transformers) (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 fictional character TTN (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge and Redirect to Transformers (toy line). The toys under "Generation 1 Pretender Waverider (1988)" at the very least appear to be worth mentioning. I am unsure about the first two sources and how they would be worked in as the first one hints at an announcement or passing mention, while the second is a quote. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transformers: Super-God Masterforce. (non-admin closure) ミラP 05:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Transformers: Super-God Masterforce as main character for that series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Berlon (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)

DELETE: I was going to try to breathe some life into this page but after reflection believer it should be deleted. The subject is a minor political player who never held elective officer. The page is stagnant ands there is little chance that it would every seriously be updated. I do not believe it fits the criteria for notability under the Wikipedia policy. At best it should be merged with another site. I was told by another editor that this is the second time that this site has been nominated. The last time was in May. Thoughts?

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8 Boardwalknw8 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8[reply]

• Comment this is a "political" nomination (not in the party sense). The nominator has failed to edit war ([1], [2], [3], [4]) the article to their preferred version and is now aiming to delete it since they have failed to get their way. This nom would seem, therefore, a candidate for being speedily kept under criterion #2, per nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. (And possibly under #1 also: The nominator...fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) User:Boardwalknw8 is also an WP:SPA for this topic ([5]) and should declare their conflict of interest, if they have one. ——SN54129 20:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalknw8

COMMENT: I am new user to Wikipedia and want to correct some of the commentary here. I have no conflict of interest in this matter. There was no "edit war". There is no attempt at disruption. My actions have been taken in good faith. Please take the time to review all of the comments that have been hidden from view by user SN54129. I believe they are relevant to the discussion. You decide.

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8[reply]

• Keep While the subject has never held elected office, seems to have generated enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to be a rather POINTy nomination Head of the state party, seems to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject passes WP:JOURNALIST is clear. WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if [..,] it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline", so GNG is technically not really necessary. (non-admin closure) ミラP 00:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –(ViewAfD · [6]):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly discussed in enough depth in good sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough indepth coverage to establish notability, it is just passing checks of existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I’m normally pretty sceptical of porn articles because they send to fall victim to link spam from adult industry blogs (many of which are unreliable or are just interviews), this one does seem to fit within the GNG. The subject is covered in mainstream publications like the New York Times and the Daily Beast and many of these sources cover her in significant levels of detail. This might be the rare porn star that has solid coverage from WP:RS. Michepman (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That is a very wide and diverse collection of sources there and there is more. I just cannot see how it is case for delete in any scenario. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Does not meet GNG, or at least, I can't find WP:THREE sources. The New York Times link [7] is just a director listing saying she was in Superbad; that's trivial, not GNG. The Daily Beast links don't count for notability because she's a writer for the Daily Beast. Articles written by her, and articles written about her by her co-workers, are not independent and thus don't count for notability. The Daily Dot is an interview transcript; also not independent (those are the subject's words, not the journalist's). AVN and other industry coverage is also not independent and doesn't meet WP:AUD. I'm not seeing any sources that meet GNG, or anything else supporting NAUTHOR or NACTOR. – Levivich 03:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audience or WP:AUD under WP:ORG is not a restriction on the notability of people nor a determination of a source's reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - throwing out the Daily Beast articles that's written by her, she still passes the GNG. The Daily Dot article includes a biographical paragraph about her in the journalist's voice prefacing the interview. MSN Australia and The Independent wrote about Snow and one of her articles here. [8][9]. Actually her articles are frequently cited by reliable sources satisfying WP:JOURNALIST.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Non-trivial mention in the New York Times, establishing notability: [17] (This is different than the other NYT link Levivich links to above) Samboy (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The articles about her do not meet GNG. She hardly receives significant coverage, for instance, in the NYT article referenced by Samboy and I agree with Levivich on other sources. The only thing giving me pause is Morbid's claim that she qualifies under NJORUNALIST. I think there's a reasonable case to be made there though some of the sources are better (The Week) than others (NY Post). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that none of the many sources linked in this article satisfy GNG because they're either brief mentions, not independent, or they're quoting her work but not talking about her as a person. I also agree that a case can be made that the subject meets NJOURNALIST. If I believed that meeting an SNG without meeting GNG was sufficient to keep an article, then I'd say "keep, meets NJOURNALIST", but because I feel that an article that meets an SNG but doesn't meet GNG should be deleted, I'm staying with my delete !vote. – Levivich 19:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Kurahashi (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:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. For someone with such a prolific publication history (12 series and tons of short stories), I honestly tried my hardest to look for information about her on Japanese websites, but Google doesn't turn up a lot of searches and there are no independent sources that confirm how notable she is (except for this BuzzFeed list). It seems like her last work was in 2009-2010. Shueisha has removed any mention of her works from their database. lullabying (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find no evidence meeting WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, no awards have been won and there is very little coverage of her in Japanese. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All of her works appear to be one shots, nothing notable has been found in terms of sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's not exactly true; Seikimatsu no Angel and Max Lovely! weren't one-shots (though the works themselves also fail WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK). lullabying (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eldaniz E. Mammadov (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)

Does not meet WP:NPROF as a part-time educator. Most of the information in the article is self-sourced (and a bit promotional). I tried draftifying this to allow time for the author to establish notability, but I was reverted. – bradv🍁 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A 2017 PhD is almost surely WP:TOOSOON. Searches gave nothing towards WP:NPROF nor much of anything else. Comment that it's possibly (but appears unlikely to me) that a search in the Cyrillic alphabet would be more productive. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in the article looks like a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't be offended, I think, it is deletion action - vandalism party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eldaniz_E._Mammadov Mirzefilankes (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Mirzefilankes (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
• Keep. This sin will delete the page dedicated to the scientist. It is important to edit the articles on wikipedia, not just delete it.Malik202045 (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC) — Malik202045 (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Mirzefilankes (talk • contribs). [reply]
  • Comment that Malik202045's very first edit was the comment on this AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sockpuppetry has been confirmed; striking this and the next comment from the socks. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks to be a WP:GNG/WP:PROF failure. Perhaps it is the obscurity of the subject's field, but I am not seeing much coverage in third-party sources. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Really not worth deleting this article. This is against the principles of Wikipedia. He is a respected scientist at BSU.Ibrahimov2019 (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Ibrahimov2019 (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Mirzefilankes (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Delete. Nothing proves notability; an obvious promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 8simran (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Keep8simran (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — 8simran (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Mirzefilankes (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Kenizx (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)KeepKenizx (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — Kenizx (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Mirzefilankes (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Serxanh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)KeepSerxanh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — Serxanh (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Mirzefilankes (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF, and there's no route to passing anything else. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:PROF --SalmanZ (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails both GNG and PROF. J947 ^(c), at 03:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While some editors advocate keeping, no policy explanation was offered to establish notability or other reasons that this article belongs and as such there is a clear consensus established by those advocating delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smith family (show business) (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)

While the family have individual members that are notable, the family unit is not.

This would be more sensible as a category: "Smith Family"; or as a list, "List of Smith Family members" - but NOT a stand alone article.

Similarly, this family unit SHOULD include ALL family members, ex wives, grandfathers etc. - at present the correct title for this article would be "Family members of Will Smiths current spousal-family" Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is a content fork and offers nothing additional that can be presented under List of showbusiness families. Ajf773 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unhelpful list. Graywalls (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is exactly the sort of list that aids our core users (students) in researching for their papers; you can have a list and a category. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Maybe some general clean-up can be done and add some more information, but yeah, keep Dpm12 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this has nothing that isn't properly included on Will Smith, a needless split. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Selectively. Sandstein 08:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (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 am also including in this nomination:

10th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

12th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

13th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

14th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

17th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

20th International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria. All of the cited coverage appears to be either self-published or routine. There does not seem to be an indication that these individual instances have had a lasting effect, nor that they meet the general notability guideline. Furthermore, they offer the reader nothing other than further data, something Wikipedia is not for than the key information at the main article. The formula is: copy the key dates, theme and attendees from the website. It appears to be an indiscriminate collection of data, something Wikipedia isn't for. SITH (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the articles largely need to be expanded to provide more detail about what happened at these individual meetings, I think it may be premature to delete these articles. The meetings are significant as they are the ICMWP is the largest (and perhaps only) international organization of Communist Parties throughout the world. The meetings themselves are mentioned in numerous secondary and primary sources online (specifically Greek, Chinese, and Portuguese publications). "Furthermore, they offer the reader nothing other than further data, something Wikipedia is not for than the key information at the main article." I don't disagree that there is a formula for creating these articles, at present I am the only one who is working on this project so I simply have not had the time to expand the articles to include more relevant information. Jp16103 15:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties already lists the national organizations and their attendance at the meetings. The meeting articles provide nothing more than this and do not demonstrate individual notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:RAPID also says "Don't rush to delete...." Jp16103 has a point that there are sources in languages other than English, to which she or he may have access. JSTOR lists 33 search results of English language articles that mention the IMOCWP, tho none devoted to it exclusively: here. Judging from the mentions, the meetings are more important outside the English speaking world.ch (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the table to List of communist parties and delete all these pages or keep only the latest one. The meaningful information in the Table is column "Parliamentary representation" because it shows influence of these parties in various countries. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect. The articles have no individual notability.--Darwinek (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The controlling policy is WP:NEVENT. There needs to be diverse, in-depth, and persistent coverage. These do not have this as searches show. Collectively however, they do belong in a list of these events somewhere. No prejudice against spinning out later if foreign language sources are found that satisfy the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetically Intuitive English (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:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No Consensus The PC World and IDG articles appear to establish notability; but I can’t find a third reliable reference. I say close with “no consensus”. I would vote “merge”, preserving history, if we could find a suitable merge target. Samboy (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects and disambiguation can be added/moved here at editorial discretion, but the consensus is clearly in favour of removing the article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cybertron (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)

My initial thought was that it'd be notable, but I'm not seeing anything. There is an issue that Google Books just shows a million Transformers books. The Gizmodo reference in the article is junk, and there's otherwise nothing here. TTN (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At minimum Redirect to Transformers as a clear search term, if no additional sourcing can be found. --Masem (t) 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While there are countless minor mentions, I can't find any significant discussion of Cybertron itself. Delete as fancruft failing WP:GNG and move Cybertron (disambiguation) to basename._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Gigantic piece of fancruft, but it will survive on the net at https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Cybertron_(planet) and like . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (Transformers) (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:GNG. The coverage in the lead is trivial. TTN (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. If there is any coverage describing the reception of this plot device in multiple news or academic sources, then I would suggest moving it to drafts. But it seems like the article mostly focuses in-universe aspects instead of public reaction towards how it's treated as a plot device, so I would suggest deleting it instead. lullabying (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be entirely fancruft that fails GNG. Move Allspark (company) to Allspark and redirect Energon to Transformers: Energon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India Staffing Federation (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)

Besides my feeling that there aren't sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, I just noticed from the edit summary from the WP:SPA creator of the article that its original intent was to smear the company. Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - plainly run of the mill company. Also, this seems to be a magnet for some who might have an axe to grind. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article isn't accurately written. It is a India company entirely, not global or based in the United States, at least according to the company website. If someone has an axe to grind, they are first making a mountain of a mole hill....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus but discuss merging/disambiguation-fication or rewrites. This deletion nomination was started due to a concern that the article in its current form is conflating disparate concepts in a way prohibited by WP:SYNTH and that each of the concerns has a page already. There are about 9 keep arguments (I've chosen to ignore "weakish" adjectives), 1 split (+1 which favours either keep or split), 1 delete (the nom) and 1 merge. Normally this would be enough for a keep but from reading the arguments it appears a substantial amount of keep arguments do not address the WP:SYNTH concerns at all ... and as a concern grounded in fundamental policy, one ought to address it.

Some people however do address it by presenting sources, but from the follow up discussion - especially from Levivich's extensive rebuttal on the one side and Slatersteven's on the other side - it's not clear that a consensus has materialized that the presented sources actually address the WP:SYNTH/redundancy problems due to e.g concerns that most sources only address specific versions which already have articles. On the other hand, there seems to be a consensus developing that a plain deletion is not the ideal way to resolve the issue, especially as the nominator has considered withdrawing. I also see the procedural points raised at the end but a 4-5 year old prior AFD is not necessarily a strong concern.

Overall, it does not seem that we have a consensus for deletion but also not a consensus for unqualified keeping without some serious work on the article, and while one might declare this a consensus for a merge/split combination, I don't think it is clear enough to call it the agreed-upon outcome of the discussion. So this is a no consensus, default to keep, but both further discussion of rewrites/merges/dsiambiguifications are possible on the talk page or bold action at editorial discretion, subject to the normal policies or guidelines that govern such things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No-go area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted because the topic "no-go area" is not a notable topic. Reliable sources do not discuss "no go areas", per se. Rather, there are different kinds of "no-go areas": military exclusion zones, LGBT-free zones, ghettos, and so on. But it doesn't appear any RS covers all of these disparate things as one category called "no go zone". The lead of the article shows this: it provides a definition that is actually the synthesis of three separate examples. The sources discussed in the prior 2015 AfD are also examples of particular kinds of no-go areas (to which the label "no go area" is applied), but not of a category that includes military exclusionary zones, legally-enforced exclusionary zones, de-facto political exclusionary zones, high-crime areas, etc. As a result of there not being any secondary sources defining the category, the article is (and basically always has been) a collection of WP:SYNTH. And, of course, it's constantly the subject of edit wars–repeated page protection is having no effect. This article should be deleted, and the content spun off or merged into other articles about more-specific zones, like military exclusion zone, etc. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keepish Its a real thing (And yes there are sources that talk about NO go areas), but the article is a bit of a POV mess in which various agendas are clashing. Rather then delete I think there needs to be an RFC about what the article is about, and enforce that ridgedly.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Slatersteven, can you link to some examples of RS that define a "no go area" generally (as opposed to a specific kind of exclusionary area that they label a "no go area")? – Levivich 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I can give you a dictionary definition [[18]], that is enough to tell me this may be a real thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, I think "it's a real thing" (which was the basis for many keep votes in the last AfD) is missing the point. Yes, lots of dictionaries have an entry for "no go area", but we're an encyclopedia and we don't have a stand-alone entry for every word or phrase in the dictionary. Here's an obligatory link to WP:NOTDICTIONARY :-) I'm not finding any non-dictionary sources that discuss "no go areas" as a broad topic. In fact, the academic sources I see all use the phrase in different ways–different from each other, different from the dictionary definition. Here are some examples: "no-go area" meaning politically taboo, "no-go area" meaning segregating schools, "no-go area" meaning unpopular practice. It's like having an article called "Bad" about all the things that people call "bad'. "No-go area" is a phrase in use in English, but not an academic or notable topic in and of itself. – Levivich 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That then means there is a topic, that is discussed in academia (which I think was my basic point, there is a subject here). So all this says is re theme (at best), not delete.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have many topics that have contested/controversial definitions. We have many articles that are subject to disputes. These are not reasons to delete. The nom appears to want a definitive definition but the real world is messier. The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society from politicians to pundits to police etc.. the number of sources in the article clearly demonstrate notability. The nom's requirement for academic notability is not a reason to delete, and I find it extremely hard to believe there are not academic papers given how widely used and contested this term is politics. One doesn't need to have definitive definitions for a wikipedia article there are multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works. Anyway clearly passes GNG. -- GreenC 18:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, the basis of my nomination isn't the lack of academic vs non-academic sources; it's that the topic violates WP:SYNTH policy because there are no RSes that treat the topic as a whole–there are only RSes that discuss particular, specific usages of the term, and those usages differ, and should be treated in separate articles, rather than bundled together, because the bundling is SYNTH. I find it extremely hard to believe there are not academic papers given how widely used and contested this term is politics Do you have any examples of any non-dictionary RS (academic or otherwise) that talks about how The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society from politicians to pundits to police? (As opposed to an RS that talks about just one of those usages.) I've looked and I haven't found anything, but I may have missed it. Because if it's editors who are taking a source about a politician's usage here, and a pundit's usage there, and stringing them together into one article, that's WP:SYNTH. – Levivich 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there are articles that discuss it more broadly such as [19][20][21]. There are so many articles on this topic it would be odd for Wikipedia not to have an article on such a widely reported and known topic. This Georgetown U Masters Thesis contains some interesting sources and discussions.[22] There are 20 pages of RS in the bibliography to draw from, plus the excellent overview and history of the term that could be incorporated via extracting RS. Our article might be better situated about the purported phenomenon of Muslim enclaves in Europe and USA (contextualized as part of Islamaphobia and conservative politics), beginning when Daniel Pipes coined the term in 2006, with the other uses redirected to other articles like military exclusion zones. I don't think AfD is the right place to decide though. Even if we conclude the academic sources reject no-go zones as an Islamaphobic myth [23] it still warrants an article to say as much. The term 'no-go area' is widely used throughout society is plainly evidence in the amount of sourcing, or for example the title of the SPLC article "'No-Go Zones': The Myth That Just Won't Quit".[24] or the article "How The ‘No-Go Zones’ Myth Traveled From The Anti-Muslim Fringe To The Mouths Of GOP Politicians". [25] It has also been discussed in books [26]. Google "no go zone" with "daniel pipes" and the types of RS sources for refactoring the article into proper context will start appearing. -- GreenC 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, this exactly illustrates my point. All of those sources are about Muslim no-go zones. That is a totally notable topic, and I would be all for Muslim no-go zone sourced to those excellent sources. But No-go area is not, and does not purport to be, about Muslim no-go zones, it's about all "no go areas". And that term, "no go area", is used by RSes to apply to things other than Muslim no-go zones, such as areas of high crime, or political taboos, or segregated schools, etc., per the above sources. And so, to you, "no go area' means "Muslim no-go zone"; to someone else (dictionaries), it means high-crime areas; to someone else it's an analogy for a taboo, and so on. If we made the article about Muslim no-go zones, it should be moved to that title. If we made the article about Muslim no-go zones and other uses of the word, we are engaging in SYNTH. In either case, there shouldn't be an article about "no go areas" generally, because we only have RSes about specific uses of that term, and not the general use. Muslim no-go zone is an example of such a specific use. – Levivich 20:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your saying though the solution of breaking it up is also problematic. The Muslim zone could and should be due to its nature, but the rest there is overlap of type (criminal and military in Ireland), and I think we loose something by scattering them around when they share common terminology. There isn't really a SYNTH problem in practice it's more of a limitation of Wikipedia in dealing with closely related topics, lumpers vs spliters. If there was a glaring OR problem that would be different but there are no controversial OR conclusions being made by housing like-named and like-topic things together, we often do this, and SYNTH is not explicit about topic-level clumping being a problem (unless a case can be made for why it is, not merely citing rules but specific to the subject matter). -- GreenC 01:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four five reasons why your argument ignores available sources:

• 1. Anderson, Ruben (2019). No Go World: How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics (1 ed.). University of California Press. p. 360. doi:10.2307/j.ctvfxvc07. "This book is the story of a political world gone wild. As it builds its narrative of global danger, the red zones inevitably taint it by association." pp. 257-264.
  2. Kassam, Raheem (August 14, 2017). No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781621576945.
  3. McHale, Gary (2013). Victory in the No-Go Zone. Freedom Press Canada. p. 224. ISBN 192768403X. ISBN 9781927684030.
  4. Preston, Richard (March 14, 2012). The Hot Zone: The Terrifying True Story of the Origins of the Ebola Virus. Anchor Books. p. 448. ISBN 9780307817655.
  5. Additionally, I would add the sources cited within (yes, I know it's a blog – nonetheless scholarly – and lists and links lots of WP:RSs, and these exist) Pipes, Daniel (January 17, 2015) [November 14, 2006]. "The 751 No-Go Zones of France" (PDF). They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS,

Meets WP:GNG and you have ignored WP:Before, WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Split: I understand the accusation of WP:SYNTH, but it feels like a stretch to apply it to a whole topic; I'm not clear what conclusion is being reached that sources don't support and various lists may have trouble meeting this standard. Moreover, WP:Broad-concept articles are generally preferred to WP:Broad-concept disambiguations. However, there does seem to be merit in the argument that the term no-go area is poorly defined; based on the lead (which has {{lead extra info}} issues), there does seem to be distinct types of zones that may be best served with separate articles. —Ost (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - This article has a serious scope problem. What can be included here? What is the very definition of the topic? We have some imaginary stuff, some politically polarized stuff, some alleged stuff, and some apparently real stuff. The sourcing? How do you source such a poorly-defined topic? I say, merge it into the dozen articles listed in "See also", something has to be a fit somewhere. Perhaps we would not be here if the topic could be defined or the article scope could be determined, but the time for that was before/during the last edit-war. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but trim - as it is the article has a lot of coatracking going on with adding places that aren't actual no-go zones like Sweden, Poland, France and so on. // Liftarn (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:NOTDIC, keep as a disambiguation page and split the content into military exclusion zones, LGBT-free zones, ghettos, muslim no-go-zones conspiracy theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transform No-go area into a redirect to No-go zone, which is already a disambiguation page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is obviously a "real thing" and is amply sourced. WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper. WP:Before. The issues that are listed are reasons and issues to improve the article, not DELETE it.

Fundamentally, the reasons to KEEP are the same as they were in the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-go area nomination.7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as User:7&6=thirteen says, it's clearly a real topic. The article can and should discuss the different definitions, and probably reorganized so it's not merely a list of places that have at some point been called "no-go area". The assertion that reliable sources do not cover no-go areas per se is false. There may or may not be a source discussing the fluid definition of the term, but there are certainly sources that talk about no-go areas. In regards to the recent phenomenon in Sweden for example, there was so much coverage and controversy that Snopes saw fit to check it out. Yes, the article can be split into different types of no-go zones, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted in its current form. If someone wants to create more specific articles, they are welcome to do so. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid broad concept article, although scope would benefit from clarification. This recent book (No Go World: How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics, University of California Press 2019) might help with sourcing the article, as would this paper about alleged no-go areas in Germany. This book discusses no-go areas in Northern Ireland, starting on page 177. I don't see a reason to split discussion of different types/examples of no-go zones (eg No-go zones in Northern Ireland, Muslim no-go zone claims, no go zones in various countries that can arise because of civil war, insurgency, etc.) into separate articles except for space reasons. Where no go zones exist they are variations on the same theme, places where the authorities cannot or will not access. I do think that there should be a move, No-go area -> No-go zone and No-go zone -> No-go zone (disambiguation) per COMMONNAME. buidhe 07:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that this article might better be organized around "Types" of "no go" exclusions. If we want to have one based on specific locales, that could be part of a "History" section. I think that would address some of the issues at this 2nd AFD discussion.

This would solve the problems listed as purported justification for deletion.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson, Ruben (2019). No Go World: How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics (1 ed.). University of California Press. p. 360. doi:10.2307/j.ctvfxvc07. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom comment: After reading the above !votes, I'm now 100% convinced that no-go area should be turned into a disambiguation page.
  • Slatersteven's example RS defines "no go area" as a high-crime area that people avoid [27]
  • GreenC's example RSes are about "Muslim no-go zones" [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]
  • 7&6=thirteen's example RSes define "no go zone" as war zones, "Muslim no-go zones", racially segregated high-crime areas, areas infected by the Ebola virus, and Sensitive urban zones in France [36].
  • Ynhockey's example RS is about high-crime areas avoided by police (which the source says don't actually exist, at least in Sweden) [37]
  • Buidhe's example RSes are about war zones [38], "areas dominated by neo-Nazis" in Germany [39], and urban areas in Northern Ireland where state security forces were unable to operate between 1969–1972 [40].
  • My example RSes use the term "no go area" to describe segregated schools, political taboos, and unpopular practices.
  • Liftarn says "trim... places that aren't actual no-go zones" but doesn't provide any RS to tell us what is and what is not an "actual no-go zone"
  • I think the premise of my nomination has been proven: no RS discusses all of these things in one article or book; rather, every RS discusses a different type of no-go area. Because no RS combines them, for Wikipedia to combine them would be SYNTH. We would be stringing together different things–like "Muslim no-go zones", neo-Nazi "no-go zones" in Germany, Sensitive urban zones in France, war zones in the developing world, high-crime areas, segregated areas, and saying they are related, when NO RS says these things are related.
  • Ost316 points to WP:Broad-concept articles, which "no go area" would seem to be, except that we have no RS about the broad concept. The examples given in WP:Broad-concept articles are articles like History of France and Supreme court. You'll find RSes talking about the History of France, generally, and comparing different nations' supreme courts, but we don't have an RS that talks about war zones AND high-crime areas AND high-Nazi areas in Germany AND loyalist enclaves in Northern Ireland AND political taboos, etc. etc. We don't have an RS that makes that connection, so it's inappropriate for us to make that connection.
  • WP:Broad-concept articles has a really great example of how to test this, using the "expert" test:

    • There are some common tests that can be used to determine whether an article can potentially be considered a broad concept article. One of these is "expert" test: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [name of page], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in the typical university)? For example, although there are many species of tuna that are called "bluefin tuna" an icthyologist could be an expert in "bluefin tuna" without needing to specify a particular species. Compare that to a person claiming to be a "Mercury" expert, or a "battery" expert. The expert on "Mercury" would need to have both Roman mythology and astronomy in his knowledge base, along with chemistry. The expert on "battery" would need both chemical engineering and legal training, as well as some military history and (depending how significant the subtopic was considered) baseball.

  • "No go area" is exactly like "Mercury" and "battery", both of which are disambiguation pages. We don't have a single article that talks about Mercury the Greek god, mercury the element, and Mercury the planet. We don't have a single article that discusses battery the energy source, battery the crime, and battery the group of artillery, all in one article. Those are disparate things that have a common name, and so are "no-go areas". It's unlikely a single person would be an expert in Muslim no-go zones, Northern Ireland no-go zones, high crime areas, war zones in the developing world, political taboos, the rise of neo-Nazis in Germany, and so on.
  • If there are no objections – particularly from the split/merge !voters Ost316, Elizium23, and Visite fortuitement prolongée – I'm happy to withdraw this nom and pursue dabbing-and-splitting the article on the talk page. Thanks to everyone for their feedback. – Levivich 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or we re-jig the article to be about the different interpretations and usages of the term.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the last AFD was a snow keep. There was no reason to renominate this, and I question the competence of anyone who would nominate this. How is this not interrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Article needs improvement. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am confident that this article warrants inclusion. RSs exist Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Hammer III (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 marketing executive, pr fluff piece. All the sources are either interviews, press releases or otherwise not actual coverage of Hammer. (Also not to be confused with George Hammer.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I completely see where the nominator is coming from, but some consideration toward improving the article should be taken. It would appear that the subject is notable to an extent, the execution of the article was simply done very poorly. If attempts to improve the article fail, I would certainly !vote delete in subsequent discussions per WP:NOTPROMO. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that it's PR fluff, it's lacking in any meaningful, in-depth and independent sourcing. I couldn't find anything to support the supposed "notability" of the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​Fair enough, I've changed my !vote. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to being a promotional article, it should be noted that Draft:George Hammer III was twice rejected after being submitted by the article's creator, with the seciond rejection coming yeasterday. This is a clear attempt to game the system by circumventing the AfC process. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That would make a case for WP:SALTing. Britishfinance (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - his only claim to fame is a non-notable catchphrase. There's also a claim he started an educator-training company but the only footnote is a press release. We've been through many AfDs where we always agree that "executive producers" are money men who are not creatives. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, achievements are not wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why is this article published? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_M._Fettig. It seems very similar to the George Hammer one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleLagos77 (talk • contribs) — AleLagos77 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of George Hammer 3 (talk • contribs).

Why does anything exist? Praxidicae (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep George Hammer III is the Chief Content Officer of IBM. He is responsible for the content operations of a global organization with over 350,000 employees (2018) and operating revenue of 55.4 billion dollars (2019). That seems quite notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.187.170 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — 208.251.187.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Which implies he has a job and is wealthy, not that he is notable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep George Hammer III is a marketer, and entrepreneur. Him having been invited to appear on tv twice (Cheddar live) discussing his leadership on a documentary film about climate change which has won numerous awards, and on CNBC re: the exclusive CMO growth council sets him apart from the standard person looking for fame that submits to wikipedia. Additionally, AdWeek recognizing him as an innovator in the field of content marketing (TOP 11 in 2019) is an achievement that very few can ascribe to themselves. If one google's George Hammer, all the entries on page 1 are of IBM's GH, not of the GH that exists on wikipedia as George Hammer. As such, it would make sense to have a page on Wikipedia that details a person's life that most people would encounter on the internet if searched for by their given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtake5 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Djtake5 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of George Hammer 3 (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Delete. Per nom. No good-quality RS with SIGCOV on him; mostly mentions in low-grade trade-sites (given his role, there are lots of trade-sites that would give him coverage to win business off him); feels like his WP article would be the most important "plank" in his notability, whereas it should be the other way around. The clear WP:PROMO, and clear WP:UPE aspect to this BLP is also very distasteful (e.g. his "editors" have inserted every possible scrap of RS into this BLP). Britishfinance (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article contains signs of bias, including promotion of social media and website features. Journal does not appear to be peer reviewed and does not have an ISSN or a DOI. XVDC (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XVDC (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as spam (WP:CSD#G11). How could this have survived for so long? I found an ISSN in Worldcat (2397-6764), but MIAR lists nothing. Not indexed anywhere, no independent sources: misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is nothing more than long term spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MIAR says it's indexed nowhere. Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blarre Bianchi & Iam Christarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I wasn't able to find any coverage on them outside of the trivial apple music, soundcloud, youtube links. The existing sources in the article are poor and don't actually verify the content. They also just released their first EP We Swervin, which hasn't charted or received significant coverage and I believe itself fails WP:NALBUM. SamCordes^talk 08:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should have been speedied. Fails WP:BAND. scope_creep^Talk 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Magnolia677: @SamCordes: Is it possible to add the single We Swervin to this Afd?
  • If this article is deleted the EP article can be speedied as A9, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that A9 would apply to We Swervin if this article is deleted. -- SamCordes^talk 17:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial or occasionally routine coverage. Nothing more. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTRESUME WP:PROMOTION Wm335td (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This fails to establish notability. The two reception links are trivial Top X lists that should be given no weight at all. TTN (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Defenders members. BOZ (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article fails WP:GNG, and the character’s name is too generic to redirect. Devonian Wombat talk 23:47, 5 December 2019
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Asgard (comics). (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls (Marvel Comics) (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 topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Asgard (comics). BOZ (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay. This page was started to detail Ulik's kind just like they have pages for the Giants, Elves, and Dwarves. Plus, the Asgard page doesn't even list the different types of either species there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Asgard (comics). Fails WP:GNG, all sources are primary Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Asgard (comics) - per Devonian Wombat. Cjhard (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Asgard (comics) - There appears to be no coverage in reliable, secondary sources of any significance, so it fails the WP:GNG. The topic is already covered in the target article, so a merge is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven van Belleghem (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)

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Claims about his achievements are sourced to his own marketing copy. The award his book has won comes from an organisation that itself does not appear to be notable (there is no article here nor in the Dutch-language Wikipedia). I can't find significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. In addition, I suspect that the original author might have an undisclosed conflict of interest, as the image of the subject is marked as the author's own work. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete likely promotional bio that fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A quick check of the Belgian press brings up too little to establish notability (there are rather more hits for a manager at AB InBev, who seems to be a different person with the same name). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional. In addition, I don't like the sideways photo. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable person in advestising.John Pack Lambert (talk)
• Delete Article feels more like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are zero reliable sources on the page. Page creator is a newbie who doesn't seem to understand what significant coverage means. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of technology in Judge Dredd (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)

Lists of random fictional non-notable gadgets. Fancruft. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION and WP:LISTN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mostly unreferenced and non-notable fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivial list of non-notable minutia. TTN (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:LISTN, the one reference is primary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations in Judge Dredd (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)

List of non-notable fictional organizations. Fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable, trivial list of minutia. TTN (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge . (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawgiver (Judge Dredd) (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)

Fictional gun that might have inspired one or two real world guns. That doesn't seem to be enough for WP:GNG; and the rest fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Judge Dredd (character) an article I just created as a split. It's usually mentioned with regards to Dredd himself, even if it is used by other Judges. As a kind of signature weapon, it can get a mention in his article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Judge of Mega-City One (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)

Fictional position that fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for being all PLOT and an unlikely search term. This topic is already adequately summarized in Mega-City One#Government with "Its ruler is the Chief Judge". – sgeureka ^t•c 14:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources are in-universe. No real world information. TTN (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monument Beach (Bourne, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources can be found. Also the title is ambiguous with Monument Beach, Massachusetts. Interstellarity (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I find that it does appear to be a neighborhood in Bourne, but there's nothing that says anything like what the article says, or for that matter anything beyond passing references, real estate listings, and clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as not meeting WP:NGEO due to lack of significant sources, no need to have an article separate from Monument Beach, Massachusetts. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neighborhoods are not notable without RS. Lightburst (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Monument Beach, Massachusetts#Beach. This article isn't about a neighborhood, it's about this beach. An actual beach with water and sand. Monument Beach, Massachusetts is about the CDP of the same name. The beach is not notable, but I added a few sentences about it so there is a redirect target. MB 04:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Della Mullady (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)

Lacks all notability. She is named (without any further information) in very few sources, and has recieved no significant attention at all. Fram (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I added another source, "The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia" that lists her on twelve pages. Also added a few films from the Lonesome Luke series of films. Also added an alternate spelling of her last name: Mulleady. I don't have time this morning to search for her maiden name. Netherzone (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is using primary sources (such as the US census). This is a violation of the very way Wikipedia is supposed to exist. Wikipedia is not a place to publish ones person primary research. It is a way to publish things that have been covered in secondary sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be sourced to priary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because we do not publish original research. There's magazines and online bulletin boards for that stuff. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines - searching Newspapers.com shows no results at all (even with name variants). The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia seems to list her as a cast member of the films named, which does not match what the contemporary directories say, and doesn't help to establish notability. It's possible that someone might research and write about her in the future, but at present there is no coverage in secondary sources apart from The Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia, which is not enough by itself. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After an in-depth search on her name and variations thereof, I cannot find anything else other than the Harold Lloyd Encyclopedia to establish notability, no news mentions from the time period, or film history articles. Maybe mention her on the film pages where she was the editor and there is a citation to back it up, if that seems relevant (?) Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wow, they had fancruft back in the 19th century? Sandstein 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leyden ball (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)

Is this fictional weapon salvagable, so that it can pass WP:NFICTION or another GNG related policy? There is a section about some recent experimental US weapon but the connection to this is rather WP:OR ish... but since weapons are 'cool', maybe this could be rewritten to be about that new gadget with a section about inspiration from this fictional concept? But I don't see very good sources to help... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough and no matter how much you do to an article it will always fail WP:GNG as per WP:ARTN. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 12:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Weapons in science fiction#Plasma weaponry. RL0919 (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma weapon (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)