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 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 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.
This article was WP:A7'ed but then immediately re-created by the author with references that cannot be checked online (although they forgot that their references are from 2012, but the rally only started in 2013). Regardless, a WP:BEFORE of websites, newspapers and searchable books, reveals nothing on this event (zero SIGCOV), outside of blogs/instagram/commercial sites linked to the event sponsor. Unlike the very notable Baja 1000 race, this event has no notability, but a very persistent new editor who is famiiar with how to "game" WP:A7. After a few random pre-edits, they "dropped" the original article to Mainspace in one go; and post A7, dropped a cut-down version, but also in one go. I bring it to the AfD community for a more permanent solution (that may need SALTing). Britishfinance (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Britishfinance (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source for the book mention is published later the name of the book is Tales from the Bivouac : Dakar 2012. Ted Johnson. if you would like to verify you can do that yourself also if you would like I can email you the copy of the Newspaper.
SportingFlyer This is not the same event but a very different one (the Baja 1000 is in November, where as this one is held at the end Sept. Unless we delete (and SALT) this now, it is going to be recreated many times over (and in its previous larger version; although with different references to avoid A7). Britishfinance (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict Draftify looks like it's a motorcycle rally. There are some sources out there, so potentially notable, but this article is nowhere near ready for mainspace. I would consider any attempt to move it back tendentious, though, so maybe this isn't the best option. SportingFlyerT·C19:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer I have done the BEFORE; nothing approaching RS or SIGCOV on this rally (unlike the Baja 1000). Not a single decent newspaper has done a piece on it. That is why there is a strong PROMO element to this, where Wikipedia would be the most important "plank" in their notability (should be other way around). Britishfinance (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: The article itself is too poor to fail WP:PROMO and my BEFORE search brought up some diverse sources which could very well be used to create a proper article. I'm not arguing this should be kept as it is, but I don't see any harm in allowing the topic to be properly developed. SportingFlyerT·C01:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what is the problem with the article so I will correct the errors and as per WP notability guidelines all statements should be made with Primary source even though I have mentioned a book and newspaper I don't think this page is not notable and the topic is also notable therefore there is a book and newspaper written furthermore there is a link to Mexican government Also, I have attached some pages from the book itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tales_from_the_Bivouac_Dakar_2012_few_pages.pdf please check Bambo 124 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of deletion request Since this page is not biased written nor non-notable it full fills WP Notability Guidelines and provide all the references such as Newspaper, Book, thrid party (Mexican government website) reference with pictures and book few pages. I request to remove the Deletion template and I will work on this article and add information further — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambo 124 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a person who would hurt the community but you are wasting your time and mine as well when this topic is notable according to WP guidelines why there is a deletion template I request to remove that as I have given enough references to prove my point about it's notability according to WP Policy.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit comment on additional sources the article creator brought up during the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit on my relist comment: Most of the sources given in the article itself don't appear to be reliable – the book seems to be self-published, and the web link is to a discussion forum. But during the discussion, Bambo 124 provided links to a video from The Weather Channel and a document from the Mexican Secretariat of Environment, both of which are presumably reliable. So rather than me or another closing admin trying to judge these, it would be very helpful if other participants could comment about them. --RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The government document is a request a permit to hold the race in an environmentally protected area. The weather channel is a video about the weather in Baja, apparently sponsored by the race as an infomercial. Major races get substantial coverage, so if this race is notable, it shouldn;t be necessary to go so far outto peripheral references that are weither promotional or just establish the existence. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The TV show who covered was not sponsored I did my research on it before mentioning up here, but I would love if you can provide me with the evidence of it being sponsored that would be helpful for me and the other contributors as well to understand the statement that you made. Bambo 124 (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the Baja 1000 article (if the Baja Rally has anything to do with it, of course). There doesn't seem to be enough material or notability for a standalone article Dflaw4 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Purely local coverage in a person's own hometown media market, in exclusively local interest contexts like being president of an organization's local chapter, is not in and of itself a free pass over WP:GNG. To earn a place in Wikipedia, a person needs to have a much more nationalized claim of significance, and much more nationalized coverage for it, than just a smattering of hits in a midsized city's community hyperlocal. As I've explained to the creator in other concurrent AFD discussions on their recent work, GNG is not just "count up the media hits and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number" — lots of people get purely local coverage in contexts that fall below our inclusion tests, so GNG does not just consider the number of footnotes: it also tests the depth of how substantively any given source is or is not about him, the geographic range of how widely he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting coverage for, and some types of coverage count for a lot less than others do. The New York Times hit, for example, is not about Jeff Ritterman, but just glancingly mentions his name a single time as a giver of soundbite in an article about something other than him — and that is not a type of "coverage" that bolsters his notability at all, because he is not the subject of the piece. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not being taken into account that he invented the sugar/soda tax that passed in Berkeley and Mexico! I also found a new source here that covers him in depth here.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One article in the local community weekly is not a magic GNG pass all by itself, and proposing local adoption of a municipal bylaw is not a notability claim. He didn't "invent" soda taxes — he just proposed Berkeley's (but not Mexico's) adoption of an idea that already existed in other places before he was even born, so he has no "inherently" notable role in the existence of the overall concept. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute here, I think the sources say he proposed and got the Mexican soda tax passes and SF Gate is the San Francisco Chronicle, The Berkeley Daily Planet and San Jose Mercury News are not bulletin boards of newsletters they are serious journalism and he is mentioned in 3 articles therein in depth, and that does meet the GNG imho.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:31, 29 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 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.
Delete. Poorly sourced and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A search for sources yields video content featuring the subject of the article, but there is nothing substantive in WP:RSabout him. --Kinut/c23:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he's got better sourcing. There are plausible notability claims here, but there's nothing that's so "inherently" notable that it would entitle him to rest entirely on primary sources instead of reliable ones — and no, the existence of one "alumni get jobs" article in the student newspaper of his own alma mater is not a notability clincher in and of itself either. The notability test for a person is not the things the article says, it's the depth and quality of the sources you can or can't use to support the things the article says. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 24 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.
Previously tagged as {{prod}}. No indication that this event has standalone notability. The article is sourced only to primary sources. Outside of that, I can only find press release-type material and event listings. There is one article at The Times of India online here, but that also appears to be routine coverage under their "City News" section (i.e., local coverage), and one source doesn't suggest WP:GNG is satisfied. Kinut/c22:04, 16 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.
Delete Trying to take a selfie does not make one notable. We are already way to presentist, including articles like this will doom us to not be encyclopedic at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is historic! Awal Sulemana should go down in the history books as Ghana's first pitch invader. Refer to google for credible sources and develop the article instead of we discussing its deletion. Geezygee (talk) 21:17, 24 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.
Keep per Randy Kryn. I know everyone is having fun merging and deleting Dune-related articles right now, but this is not a redundant fork. List of Dune characters is a really really long list that has minimal descriptions because it is already so long. List of Dune Bene Gesserit, List of Dune Fremen, and List of Dune secondary characters are intentionally derivative lists that actually discuss the topics in question (that being characters who may not require individual articles but are nonetheless notable to varying degrees). The content of List of Dune Fremen may be just as well served merged elsewhere (and it's not as well sourced), but both it and List of Dune Bene Gesserit are the targets of many character redirects. There are like 20 novels in this series, which may require more than one list.— TAnthonyTalk23:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial merge with the other Dune LoCs, but better not discuss this at AfD to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. The content and sourcing here is not deletion-worthy, but the in-universe presentation as a fictional "race" character list is. List of Dune characters seems rather crufty and barebones with its non-linked one-line entries, and can hold the most important characters just fine. An alternative is to split the lists by work, but as I said, this is better discussed not here. – sgeurekat•c08:30, 24 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.
Keep. Hey, I sympathize with the nominator if they are sort of embarrassed about this, like if they thought they were supporting it but then it failed to survive. But it was a museum with a collection and apparently there was even controversy about its $500,000 appropriation from the U.S. Congress, so coverage exists (including national level news coverage such as this from CBS, and once-notable-always-notable. And wp:ITSAMUSEUM. There's a story to be told about its rise and fall and what happened to its collection. We don't cover just outstanding successes, we cover many failures such as movements to split a new state out of California, etc. This did achieve 501c3 status which is a small accomplishment in itself; and presumably there were donors, and the public deserves to know what happened. But mainly this passes wp:GNG so we keep. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't temporary and museums do close. I'd be happy to see this article re-jigged into something more about the collection of teapots, if that finds another home. Andy Dingley (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a little teapot, short and stout... But in all seriousness, this does seem notable, especially for the pork barrel spending. I challenge Theroadislong to WP:SOFIXIT. I've seen their ability elsewhere, and it seems theres just enough sourcing to expand this, or at least clean up what is there right now. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓00:05, 30 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.
Fails WP:GNG. I found this, but that was all and it is only a passing mention. I can't find the external link TV article, if someone else can, that would be great. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, while i accept that winning Miss Universe meets WP:ANYBIO ie. "well-known and significant award or honor" i do not believe that a "Miss (insert country name)" is necessarily the same, also doesn't seem to be much on Broman out there in googland, and WP:BLP1E is an issue, so a delete from me (noting that she is listed at Miss Finland). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your views were what prevailed when we massed discussed this issue. Especially since the alternate proposal would have lead to treating as significant wins of titles that had virtually no competition or local attention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to look for Finnish sources but there isn't much to find. The contest is not so popular anymore that all winners would become widely known. -kyykaarme (talk) 20:51, 26 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.
Possible GNG fail; very few reliable/verifiable sources found. All sources refer to him turning to professional boxing, however, can find no records of a professional career, only cancelled fights (no listing on BoxRec for Sheikh Waziri/Ibrahim Sheikh Waziri), regardless, is still a definite NBOX fail. 2.O.Boxing21:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find a good reliable source of Google. So, reliable sources do not have sufficient depth coverage to establish the significance. Fails WP:NBOX.-Nahal(T)23:50, 30 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 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 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 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.
Other than the typical announcements of hiring/transferring, there is almost nothing about Jones in any major media. NGRIDIRON says that assistant coaches need to meet GNG, which as far as I can tell he does not. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search shows another Travis Jones who is a former football player ,failed to find extra references for the article ,the available reference is not clear and the external links tooGeorgiamarlins (talk) 19:47, 23 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.
D&D character. No evidence of real-world notability, and no secondary sources cited. Tagged as needing better sourcing and some out-of-universe content since 2013. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor fictional character with very little in the way of reliable, secondary sources. There is one non-primary book being used in the article, but it is actually supporting very little information, and, regardless, is not enough to pass the WP:GNG alone. Redirecting to Greyhawk, where he is briefly mentioned, may be OK, but a merge there does not really make a whole lot of sense due to the relative unimportance of the character and the lack of sourced information. Rorshacma (talk) 21:38, 23 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 article was merged into another article, but the article creator insists on removing the redirect, so I thought an AfD was due. This is a one-off anniversary event with not enough notable content for a standalone article. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:03, 23 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 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.
Minor fictional character. Clearly a recurring feature in lots of D&D media, but no evidence of real-world notability and no secondary sources cited. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The character's only claim to fame was the number of appearances he has made in various official D&D products, but without reliable, secondary sources discussing him, he just does not pass the WP:GNG. Searching for sources brings up a few mentions here and there, but nothing in-depth, or going much beyond just mentioning products he appears in. Rorshacma (talk) 21:31, 23 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.
This term completely fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. This is still the case even after I looked for new sources. This is actually the 4th nomination; it was deleted twice in 2005, and nominated again in 2007 but that time was closed as "no consensus". -Crossroads- (talk) 18:45, 23 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.
I've made some edits to help improve the entry. Hubris Games had a big impact on story-based RPGs, including games like Fiasco and even 7th Sea. Peter Adkison has a copy of Story Engine on his shelf. It was pre-modern internet so there's not much left to reference
Studiozut (talk) 19:00, 23 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.
This started off as an OTRS ticket asking about the supposed falls, but I've done a fair amount of research and I simply cannot find any verification that this is anything more than an odd sounding with little or no further verification. The vast majority of the information in the article seems to be either WP:OR (based largely on the NOAA page) or from the interview given by the singular newspaper source. Everything else that I'm finding online is either a mirror of us or them. I mean, there's not even rebuttal about the existence. It might exist, or it might not, but we should not be the ones interpreting bathymetric soundings of ancient riverbeds trying to determine that. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Conflict of interest: no explicit position on question of deletion. However, definitive evidence exists for the existence of the channel down which water flowed from Lake Chippewa to Lake Stanley. Additional citations posted in this article. New Lake Stanley article created, with citations, as a gesture of respect to the skeptics whose views are set forth here. Bigturtle (talk) 03:38, 24 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.
This list is a WP:LAUNDRYLIST and does not provide adequate information in order to qualify for its own list. One small college out of the thousands that exist does not warrant its own residence hall article. AmericanAir88(talk)17:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no way this should be deleted, because merging to the college article would be obviously superior, but in fact I think "Keep" is better. There is no need for the nominator to be derogatory about this college, and there is almost always sufficient information about a college or university's buildings to justify a separate list-article about them. The college is notable. It is reasonable to split out coverage of the buildings when the article gets long. Also, deletionist editors seem to forget all the time that list-articles are good for reducing the number of articles in wikipedia, because they allow coverage of buildings in just one article. It is often a solution for too many separate residence hall articles to combine them into one list-article, which is what we have here already.
This college has a couple buildings which are separately listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which are only briefly mentioned in the college article. It would be best probably to cover those buildings and the residence halls in one list-article of the college's buildings. So I suggest closing this AFD as Keep, with intent/suggestion to move/rename it to be about all buildings at the university. Then I personally will be happy to expand the coverage there, including with known-to-be-reliable/great sourcing about the National Register ones. --Doncram (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: It seems that your vote is more of a merge/move rather than a keep. Just because some buildings are on the NROHP, doesn't mean there should be a list of all residence halls in this university. Like I said above in my rationale, there are thousands of colleges that do not have lists of their own residence halls and can easily supplement that by a link to website or mention in the target article. "Residence Halls at Winona State University" is not a proper redirect title, nor is it notable for a separate list. I suggest that if you want this article to not be deleted, that you consider merging or moving as a rationale. AmericanAir88(talk)18:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I try to make my votes in the standard terms recognized by wp:AFDSTATS and given in AFD instructions. "Move" or "Rename" are not standard outcomes. I reiterate, there is no way this should be outright deleted, because there is available good alternative of merger or redirect. And further, this is fine as a start for an overall article about buildings at this university, which is fine to have, and I agree to develop it further in that way. The correct way to describe that decision is "Keep", perhaps with endorsement of moving/renaming/developing it.
Note, as Hog Farm suggests, the list-article can/should cover the library and the performing arts center as well, and perhaps when editing the list-article i may choose to merge them in, or perhaps not. It is not necessary to have an AFD discussion about just a merger; I don't think this AFD was needed in fact.
AmericanAir88, in your reply to me and more in your reply to Hog Farm, you seem to suggest that leaving a redirect behind is not possible or not desirable. Au contraire, in my opinion that is fine and good to do. It allows the edit history of the contributions to be kept, and "redirects are cheap". You don't have to go around creating a few thousand similar redirects at every other university article; there is no way that leaving a redirect here compels you to do that. Here there has been an article at this exact title which the original editors might be interested in finding, and there no doubt exist other copies of this article in copycat sites, and it is useful to keep the redirect for those looking for the original article, even if the article is moved to List of Winona State University buildings or similar, like so many others in Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Winona State University#Housing. This shouldn't be entirely deleted, but as it is, there is no way that an article specifically about residence halls at this university passes GNG. The sources in the article are all self-published, and all the coverage I can find is either self published or trivial. If a list of campus buildings is made in the future, I think it'd be best to merge WSU's Performing Arts Center and maybe Krueger Library there too. Hog Farm (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Is a merge needed for this type of article? The redirect this creates is not an encyclopedic term and for equality, it would need the thousands of other colleges to have a redirection with a similar title. You have mentioned that this is not notable, but I respect your rationale. However, I believe this still warrants a deletion discussion. AmericanAir88(talk)18:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like i comment above, there is no need for "equality" that way. I argue for "Keep" above, but if the decision was merge to the target suggested by Hog Farm, then leaving a redirect behind is very appropriate. For one thing, it would allow me or anyone else to go back to the original content and see the contribution history, perhaps after finding additional sources. In this case I am sure there are enough sources for a totally defensible list-article of buildings, and I absolutely will resurrect the article and develop it into a list-article of buildings at Winona State University, if for some inexplicable reason the closer wanted not to take the explicit "Keep" decision. With either "Merge" or "Keep" decision we will end up in the same place, with a list-article of buildings having this page's edit history. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hog Farm. I agree the subject does not have independent coverage to meet GNG. But a list of residence halls in the housing section of the university article is appropriate. A very selective merge, leaving out the trivia/OR leaves little more that a list and maybe 1-2 sentences on each hall. Also agree with Doncram that Merge leaves a redirect which preserves edit history. I do not understand AA88's thoughts that redirects must be "encyclopedic". Anyone who has spent anytime at RFD knows the standard is keep if anyone finds it useful. Redirects are only deleted if a wholly implausible search term. But keeping this redirect does not mean thousands more would be needed for "equality", although if someone did so they would probably be kept. MB02:37, 29 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.
Comment I think I need to recuse myself for COI reasons, but I will note that the article was substantially revised since the prod, including new sources, so the subsequent deprodding by Explicit seemed reasonable. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}19:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who enriched the references set, but that was in an unsuccessful attempt to find sufficient material to support notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:05, 24 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.
Keep: her music has charted on Oricon and she also passes WP:GNG since there are plenty of articles on her. But my gosh, this article is terribly sourced and should at least be moved to drafts before being published in this state. lullabying (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as has charting hits on a recognised national chart as per criterion 2 of WP:NMUSIC criterian 2 and has articles about her that can be used to improve the article up to a start class, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:15, 30 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.
These are not even actual charaters in the Simirillion, in that they do not really do anything in the work, especially nothing to advance the plot. Even if they were, that would not make them clearly notable. What we have here is one primary source and one other source that just reports plot. There is nothing to show notability. Just because their sister is arguably one of two people most key to the victory of good in the Similrillion does not make them notable, all the more so because the Similrillion was never really brotten to the level of a readable, coherent story like LotR. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect My instinct is to delete this article, but [6] suggests people are apparently reading this, so I guess it's a valid search term. Fails WP:GNG miserably. Only target I can come up with is Dior Eluchíl, and since it says these two were "left to starve in a dark forest", I guess that's a good target. Hog Farm (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC) (changed !vote) Hog Farm (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good redirect target. Looking at Dior Eluchíl more, I don't think it can pass WP:GNG so I'm changing to delete this article. I suspect the reason the Tolkien articles are in such poor shape compared to the articles about other fantasy series is that contributors focused more on quantity, rather than quality, of articles. Hog Farm (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am really considering trying a mass nomination because we have so many articles on non-notable Silmarillion characters. However mass nominations normally fail. It is just odd to me that articles on these totally non-notable fictional characters have been around since January of 2014. That is almost 16 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean 2004. Sorry for the typo. The article on their father dates back to December 25, 2002 and has as its lone source the Silmarillion itself. Wikipedia's coverage of fictional people have often been its most unjustified overly much.
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.
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not even clear that this is a secondary school, as opposed to a primary or other lower-division school. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The keep arguments are surprisingly weak, but the participation in favor of delete is too small to call it the other way. RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable topic. The game's creator (Elaut Belgium) is not notable for a Wikipedia article, making an article about its games having less possible notability. Also, Elaut has other variations of a very similar coin pusher type game. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞🗨️🖊️04:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as not having very many sources. Other than the article from The Press of Atlantic City, all the other sources are from the manufacturer’s websites. —𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞🗨️🖊️02:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sock-created but updated by others, this article features only GNG-qualifying source at the moment, the good Press of Atlantic City article. All other sources are from the manufacturer's website which is a bit of a backdoor WP:PROMO issue as well and is most decidedly not "plenty of sources." SportingFlyerT·C06:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article does have sources, as people above have said, and a Google search for "Wizard of Oz (Arcade game)" does throw up entries. Vorbee (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep arguments say there are sources, so could someone give an independent reliable source other than the one local newspaper mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my delete !vote stands. I just did a thorough before search and the only article that I would !vote keep on is already in the article. The fact all but one of the sources are primary and sourced to the manufacturer continue to make this article promotional. Frustrated none of the keep !votes have demonstrated any further coverage apart from a single article. SportingFlyerT·C21:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to point out again that the only source in the article is the Press of Atlantic City article, others are from the manufacturer’s website. I think a lot of people in this discussion are missing this point as many people voting keep are mentioning plenty of sources. —𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞🗨️🖊️18:40, 25 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 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 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.
Delete There is no in depth coverage of Choi. I fail to see how this possibly meets NPOL as a "vice mayor" of a small city. Unless there is significant in-depth coverage of Choi and not just "x is councilperson of y", this fails all our N criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when an article mentions that an individual eulogized another person we are going into clearly non-notable concerns. This is local news stuff, not encyclopedic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ndołkah, Just the very basics tightly focused on the city council. As in, this person was on it, and that's about it. Routine stuff like they voted for X or proposed Y shouldn't be there. Ravensfire (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Richmond CA is not large enough to confer guaranteed inclusion rights on its city councillors just because they exist. For any of its city councillors to clear the notability bar, they would have to show either (a) preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) a depth and range of coverage that expanded significantly beyond what every city councillor in every city is simply expected to always be able to show, such that they had a credible claim to being of much more nationalized prominence than the norm. But this doesn't show either of those things at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 24 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.
Keep this guy is very famous in the San Francisco Bay Area, for years he had infomercials for the People's Lawyer and he even has NY Times coverage. One guy is mass nominating Richmond, California articles for deletion.Ndołkah (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under normal circumstances a city council for a city the size of Richmond, that is not even one of the 3 largest and most important cities in its urban area would have no notable members. Local media promotion does not translate into notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not if all you show is two hits in the local media, no. To be wikinotable for being a city councillor, his coverage would have to nationalize far beyond just the Bay Area. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, I have a lot of respect for your work to delete articles about non-notable politicians and often agree with you. But your comment that "his coverage would have to nationalize far beyond just the Bay Area" is not based on any policy, guideline or established consensus. The San Francisco Bay Area region has nine million people, more than 38 U.S. states, and significant coverage of Rogers in respected, award winning regional newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News is perfectly adequate to establish notability. The vast majority of local politicians do not receive such significant coverage in major regional newspapers Cullen328Let's discuss it07:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every city councillor in every city can always show as much local coverage as this shows — if this is enough coverage to make Jim Rogers more notable than most other city councillors, then every city councillor is always more notable than most other city councillors and the entire concept of NPOL is automatically rendered completely meaningless because nobody in politics can ever fail it anymore. The notability test for a city councillor is not just "local coverage exists in the local media", because every city councillor can always show that — it is "he has a credible claim to being much more nationally significant than the norm for this level of political office", and that test is not automatically passed just because his city happens to be a suburb of a larger media market whose main local newspaper is more famous than other cities' local newspapers. Richmond, in and of itself, is smaller than the city I grew up in — so its city councillors are not more special than the city councillors in my hometown just because Richmond happens to be a suburb of an even larger city whose local media is more famous than my hometown's local media. If Rogers clears the bar on the sourcing shown here, then every city councillor in existence automatically also clears the bar. Bearcat (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, you are factually wrong if you assert that every city council member in every medium size city gets coverage in major newspapers like the 20 paragraph article about Rogers in the Mercury News. Nobody in Northern California calls Richmond a "suburb" of anything, certainly not San Jose. Richmond is a working class port city with a long history of shipbuilding and automobile manufacturing. It is definitely not a "suburb". Cullen328Let's discuss it20:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear here, the standard is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." so he has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources. That is a cut and paste from the GNG that you mentioned. And your assessment does not support what the GNG says and is Original Research at worst, overzealous dissent at best I would say. Furthermore POL states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." 18 is multiple and in secondary sources, including several in depth. The various newspapers are intellectually independent of each other and of Jim Rogers. Furthermore OTHERSTUFF applies here "Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." This article stands by itself, we this discussion does not decide if other stuff should exist or not, the fact that there are millions of other articles that could be created on other councilors is not under consideration here. They would have to stand on their own merits. It's too bad your hometown doesn't have coverage as great as Richmond, maybe Richmond is better for it maybe not but tell me what city is that? I would love to create an article on another city council.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear here: if the only notability test that people actually had to pass was that some local coverage exists in their local media, and the existence of such purely local coverage handed them an automatic GNG pass that exempted them from having to actually clear the defined notability criteria for their occupation, then we would have to keep an article about every city councillor in every city on earth; every school board trustee in every city on earth; everybody who ever opened a local restaurant or boutique; everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest or battle of the bands competition; every president of an elementary school parent teacher association or a condo board; every teenager who ever had two pieces of human interest coverage written about his battle against a health challenge; every high school athlete; my mother's neighbour who got into the local papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard; every murder victim on earth; and me. In other words, if we do that, we're not an encyclopedia anymore — we're just a worthless LinkedIn clone.
Which is precisely why, as I previously pointed out and was correct about, GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number". GNG also takes into account the depth of the coverage, the geographic range of the coverage, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and assigns much less value to localized coverage than it does to nationalized coverage. A person does not automatically get into Wikipedia on GNG grounds just because some local coverage exists in local-interest contexts: their coverage has to demonstrate a nationalized profile for reasons of nationalized significance before it counts as notability-making coverage under GNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your just not citing policy and everything else is irrelevant here. The GNG is all that matters here. Where in policy does it state that you must have national coverage?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ONLYESSAY: specifically, the part about how we have "policies" to tell us what to do, and guidelines to tell us how to do it. "Policy" is not the sum total of all the rules we apply and follow — policy, in fact, is only for the most very general statements of broad principle, while most of our rules are actually communicated and covered by things called guidelines and actual practice rather than by "policies". Policy is for base things like "don't attack other editors" and "don't make unsourced allegations of criminality against our article subjects", not for article structure matters. So it's not sufficient to say that "because I can't find a policy that confirms what you're saying, that means you're wrong and I don't have to follow it" — you also have to be familiar with the consensus agreement about how policies are understood to apply when conflicting interpretations of them have come up for discussion and debate. One of those agreements is that the existence of a handful of local coverage in a person's local media, in local interest contexts that do not clear the defined inclusion standards for the person's occupation, is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from those inclusion standards — as I already pointed out, every city councillor on the planet can always show the existence of some local coverage. But Wikipedia has an established consensus that not every city councillor warrants an article, so the key to making a city councillor notable enough for inclusion is to show that he's significantly more notable than most other city councillors, not just that he has the same thing that every other city councillor in existence also has. It doesn't matter one pinch of bird shit whether that's officially spelled out in policy or not — if thousands of other AFDs on city councillors who could only show routine local coverage, but had no credible claim to being special at all, said so, which they did, then that established consensus is every bit as binding as any policy statement. "If it isn't officially branded as policy, then it isn't a real rule" is not a thing — we have lots of rules that aren't formally coded as policy, but are still real rules that still have to be followed. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep, article was a complete hatchet job and presumably created for that reason. I have redacted as required per WP:BLP, please do not restore per WP:BLP, instead take the issue to the article talk page. Removing the BLP violation deleted whatever notability he might have had, so delete for lack of notability.Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC) -- Changed my vote to "Keep" based on new material, see comment below.[reply]
Delete. Richmond CA is not large enough to hand all of its city councillors guaranteed inclusion rights just because they exist — to be notable enough for inclusion, Jim Rogers would have to show either (a) preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) that his depth and range of coverage had expanded far beyond the norm, to the point that he had a credible claim to being much more special than most other city councillors. But neither of those things are in evidence here, and I've already explained above why "he has some coverage in his own city's local media" is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. No city councillor in any city ever doesn't have that. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request for more time I have expanded the article and found many more sources, I feel more strongly now that it does meet the GNG after the other sources that may have violated BLP had been removed.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well... there is a lot of new material and refs, and the negative material has been scrubbed. The East Bay Other did call him "the Bay Area's most famous TV lawyer". The San Franciso Chronicle has an entire article on him, and there are 18 other refs. There's no reason to delete the article now and it would be unusual to delete an article that so easily meets WP:BIO.
That said, the refs themselves have bad things to say about him. Character assassination at one remove using this method is something we do see. It's possibly in play here, but in my judgement since he really is notabl in part for being involved in the (bad) activities described, it's OK, particularly since we ourselves aren't saying it. Consequently I've changed my "vote" (above) from Delete to Keep.
Also, since this is the first "vote" since the article was improved, the closer ought to heavily discount comments above here and mostly consider comments starting here. Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rogers has three plausible claims of notability: as a high profile lawyer, as an elected Contra Costa County supervisor, and as a member of the Richmond, California city council. He is not a small town politician, as his county has a million residents and his city has a population of 110,000. Wikipedia currently has about 250 biographies of California county supervisors. The article has been dramatically improved in recent days. The 20 paragraph article about Rogers in the San Jose Mercury News published in 2014 after his electoral defeat is a strong indicator of his notability. San Jose is over 50 miles away from Richmond and it is unusual to devote such significant coverage to a defeated politician in a city so far away. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to have been saved by the good work of Ndolkah. They have found many good refs and greatly improved the article, and removed the offending BLP material. They ought be commended! Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓06:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen. There has been a great deal of work to improve the article after the original, BLP violating hatchet job was pushed into Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 20:36, 29 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. Local media coverage of the political activity of local politicians is typically discounted at AFD, and most participants have followed that model in forming their consensus to delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage from the San Francisco chronicle when you are on the city council of a city in their coverage area is default coverage, it is not enough to show the type of true notability required to create articles on local politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, JPL is correct. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests for the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about the subject, the geographic range of how widely she is getting covered, and the context of what she's getting covered for, not just the raw number of footnotes present in the article. Every city councilor everywhere can always show examples of his or her name getting into the local media — so if all a city councillor had to do to exempt themselves from our notability standards for city councillors was show that routine local media coverage existed, then every city councillor everywhere would always get that exemption and the standards themselves would never apply to anybody at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Richmond CA is not large enough to hand all of its city councillors guaranteed inclusion rights just because they exist — to be notable enough for inclusion, Maria Viramontes would have to show either (a) preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) that her depth and range of coverage had expanded far beyond the norm, to the point that she had a credible claim to being much more special than most other city councillors. But neither of those things are in evidence here, and I've already explained above why "she has some coverage in her own city's local media" is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. No city councillor in any city ever doesn't have that. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She does not meet WP:NPOL, and there is not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I do find non-local coverage of her policies/opinions (eg in Kentucky, Nevada, Massachusetts, Florida), but only as short quotes in articles about the topic of eg gun violence, casinos, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The coverage is very routine and the subject simply does not meet the bar for inclusion. - MrX 🖋 12:54, 30 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.
This fails to establish notability. Only source is just a description of the topic, offering no suitable commentary. Previous AfD was 2006, so it's not relevant to modern standards. TTN (talk) 11:59, 23 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 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.
Keep, as creator. Incompleteness is not a reason for deletion, as it can be fixed by adding the missing information to the article if there are reliable sources for it. However, in my view, such aspects as the list of features and supported platforms are a low priority for this article: they are likely mostly the same as similar apps. What's a matter of public interest about this app is its apparent nature as spyware, which is sourced to one of the most reliable media organizations in the world. Insofar as notability is a concern, the article cites two other sources unrelated to the NYT article that provide substantial coverage about the app. Sandstein 10:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added BBC coverage published today, and a bit of info I noted there. The app and its withdrawal from the Google and Apple app stores is attracting news coverage in several countries, making it notable. The article was already no longer exclusively based on the NYT article when I found it. Comparisons to other apps are not relevant to notability unless reliable sources start emphasizing them, so I see no reason failing to cover them in the article is a bad thing, much less makes the article less worth keeping. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google news search quickly reveals that this app has become a global news story. I notice the Chicago Tribune, BBC and Wired News all feature reports about ToTok. Knobblytalk22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Objective-See (Patrick Wardle) is actually the security researcher that did the analysis for the New York Times. And, an app doesn't need to have backdoors, malware or exploits to be a surveillance tool. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All discussion is based on a piece of single news, how can we know it is the truth or a fake news? As per Khaleej Times, ToTok unavailability is a 'technical issue' and they had engaged with Apple and Google to fix the issue. I realise that all negative news were coming from the US. Maybe it is just a strategy against UAE? So I think this should be deleted as we cannot make sure the news said the truth.Yoyo Mina (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Yoyo Mina (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jackie Peterson (talk • contribs). [reply]
Dear Sandstein, actually my concern is that we are not sure The New York Times said the truth, so the part of "Surveillance tool reports" may not suitable? As a Wiki page, we should try to keep the info authenticity. Hope you can consider this.Yoyo Mina (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." The article isn't saying ToTok is a surveillance tool, it's merely stating that that's what the New York Times (and other sources) said. ...Anyway, neutrality isn't a valid reason for article deletion. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like other popular apps, this app also got its importance on a region, So it need to an interest to encyclopedic searchers --Qowa (talk) 11:03, 24 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. There is a clear absence of consensus (and more support for keeping the article) after extended time for discussion. I would suggest that a better approach than scattershot deletion or nomination for deletion of articles in this area would be having one central top-down discussion of what should be included, and what should be merged or discarded, with clearly defined parameters of sourcing and importance. BD2412T03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are a lot of different giants, and while I doubt any of them are independently notable, there are lots of little bits that could be pulled together about them, and there are no doubt a few things to be said about giants in general (there are some interesting, if brief, comments in this article, for example). Keeping these higher level articles seems like a decent compromise between keeping and deleting articles about D&D monsters. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because secondary source exist. Most are not yet worked into the article, but we are supposed to judge it by its potential, not current state: Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, p. 193, Literary Sources of D&D, The Monsters Know What They're Doing, p. 149-153, Giants. With major adventures dealing with giants (Against the Giants, Storm King's Thunder) I also expect there is some treatment in magazines, but cannot say myself. D&D's giants have also been used by third party publishers. Daranios (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those provide significant coverage on the topic? It seems to be simply in-universe descriptions lacking real world commentary. TTN (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the mentioned sources contains solely in-universe description, some do partially. Their depth of coverage varies. Literary Sources of D&D and especially The Ashgate Encyclopedia give creative origins. ..for Dummies evaluates the role in the game, and talks about their use in the game. The Monsters Know What They're Doing does the latter more extensively. Giants, as far as I can tell, gives us where giants appear in popular culture, and tells us that D&D is one of those places. Daranios (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources discusses D&D Giants in detail, at best they get a passing nod (mention). For example The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, which you cite as particularly relevant, doesn't seem to mention D&D at all. Please note we are discussing the deletion of the article on Giants in D&D, not on giants in general (which, I'll note, desperately needs 'in popular fiction' section). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of doubt I can fullfill your wishes for volume, but The Ashgate Encyclopediadoes have a separate section about D&D: Please look at page 193 for giants in that context. If you are looking for quantity, The Monsters Know What They're Doing discusses giants in D&D for a number of pages, starting at p. 249, plus some general analysis at p. 8. Daranios (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TTN as failing GNG. No sources have been provided by anyone besides Daranios, and those are just passing mentions or about giants in general, not from D&D. I do not object to the creation of a Giants in popular culture page if one wants to create one.ZXCVBNM (TALK)21:17, 28 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.
Weak keep. There are a lot of different giants, and while I doubt any of them are independently notable, there are lots of little bits that could be pulled together about them, and there are no doubt a few things to be said about giants in general (there are some interesting, if brief, comments in this article, for example, some hits about sexuality...). Keeping these higher level articles seems like a decent compromise between keeping and deleting articles about D&D monsters. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, that the sources only discuss monsters in D&D in general, not addressing fey specifically? I think this is not correct: While the source do talk about monsters in general, they also each refer to fey specifically in some way: ...for Dummies to fey as a group, Ashgate Encyclpedia to the origins of the nymph and satyr, Literary Sources of D&D to the origins of many real-world mythology based fey (brownie, satyr, nymph, nixie,...), The Monsters Know What They're Doing to both fey as a group and many individual races, The monst underrated monsters features the quickling, rpg.net talks about some fey as forest dwellers, io9 tells us the D&D nymph appeared in Futurama, the Concentric article talks briefly about both fey as a group and the satyr. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that fey are not mentioned in Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons proves nothing except that that article could still use a lot of work (it does not even address the concept of creature types at all yet). I invite you to improve it - there certainly are lots of secondary sources to do that out there. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If even fans don't say it's notable (in the MiD&D article), it's a fair wager to assume it's not notable. I'll leave the improvement of D&D articles to those who actually care about it. – sgeurekat•c11:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the end, none of the proposed sources actually discuss the concept of Fey creatures in D&D in any depth. Several of the sources brought here, I would argue, would not count as reliable secondary sources, and those that are do nothing but give brief mentions of them as a thing that exists. There is not actually anything in them that would allow the creation of an article that would be able to pass the WP:GNG. It isn't just the number of mentions in sources that grants notability, it is the actual content within those sources, and in this case, that content is sorely lacking. Rorshacma (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a short section discussing the concept of the fey in the game as a group based on the known secondary sources. Please take that into account for the deletion decision. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be trivial mentions, simply describing the in-universe role without any particular commentary to make them more than trivial mentions. Rather than an exploration on seeing if the topic is notable, it seems more like an attempt to find anything that could possibly be used to keep the article in existence despite its flaws. TTN (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really change much, as its just using the same sources to just rearrange the same information in a different way. That does not actually add notability to the concept. As my main argument in this AFD was the extremely brief discussions of them in the known secondary sources, just using the same sources in a new paragraph doesn't help pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I have missed an existing sentence there. I have rephrased to avoid presenting the same information twice. That means there already was information about the concept of fey in the article. What's still new is the creative origin, evaluation about what is seen as special about the fey, and evaluation of their use in the game, all of which is meta and cannot be found directly in the primary sources. If you are talking purely about quantity, at least The Monsters Know What They're Doing talks about fey for a number of pages. (Only about two thirds of a page about the fey as a group, but as I said in the beginning, this page also is the merging point of individual creature entries not deemed noteworthy on their own.) Daranios (talk) 21:37, 26 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: How do you merge into a nonexistent article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 23 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.
Keep The article has enough sourcing to demonstrate that Khan meets WP:GNG. It also shows she has had two significant roles in notable films, so I believe she does meet the first criteria of WP:NACTOR, and she has been cast in two more roles in upcoming films, see [10]. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: (all sorts of WP:ANI stuff going on): Delete or draftify: (Subject to references)article creator self-removed a validly created CSD tad as opposed to validly contesting it. Most references appear to be in Bengali, without even a title translate to English in the citation. and while it is acceptable to use non English references it is difficult for those not proficient in the language to scrutinise the source. The only English Language source given appears to be for an upcoming film and therefore not acceptable for WP:RS as I recall. For article retention can I suggest per WP:THREE the three most suitable sources are presented here with sufficient evidence in English to prove their satisifaction of WP:RS. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC):Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark:, where did the article creator remove a CSD tag? I can't see the article being tagged for CSD in its history. Also, as you point out, there is no requirement for sources to be in English, so how can you use the fact that they are in Bengali to ignore them? If you want to read the sources, you can use Google translate on the online ones. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to all there was no CSD on this particular article and please WP:TROUT me on this and thankyou for pointing it out. In terms of non-English language sources, I believe without looking up guidelines/policies there is a preference to use English-language sources when available for the English Wikipedia. It is obviously far more difficult for me to scrutinize foreign language sources to check for press releases, conflict of interest, etc, etc. Google translate can be far more problematic and may not handle larger documents. Because of this I certainly don't want to waste my time scrutinizing multiple documents. As I say the creator couldn't even be bothered to before a trans-title ... though at least gave a lang= parameter. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. this article enough sourcing on google to meet WP:GNG. I didn't find any reason for deletion. According to (here 12345678) all of news source are reliable source. an also she had two important roles in the notable film. she has acted in two more roles in the upcoming film. this article should not be deleted.-Nahal(T)23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for presenting your sources. I've checked the first three (as I said I would above), and they all seem to say she will apprear in a film so maybe WP:TOOSOON. On that basis I'n not changing my delete !vote. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This biography clearly fulfills these criteria as he She has received significant coverage in at least three leading mutually independent daily newspapers in Bangladesh. The concept of "WP:TOOSOON" applies when the basic criteria are not clearly met.-Nahal(T)21:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't begin to accept your argument unless their is an official gender re-assignation. Can you point out the source in which that occurred. And I want the 3 specific sources designated .... not a vague go and guess them. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty-naughty NahalAhmed Using this edit [11] to make me look like more of a stupid plonker than I am already am by changing the enrty. Striking one he and putting she would have been sufficient. We all make typos ... and I'm in the top 2%. The question here was by getting the gender incorrect was this a typo or had the articles been read correctly. What I am looking for here is not 9 sources too difficult for me to go throught but simply the 3 best sources that verify she is an established actress in published films say. In a waffley sort of way we may have this below but it is rather going a hard way about not demonstrating it conclusively.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that she/he with a strikeout. I'm almost certain if you presented just the 3 best sources or had the best sources first I might have !voted keep or at least weak week. As it is due to the ANI stuff I am staying out and neutral. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me. I was mistakenly writing for using 'he' . wikipedia isn't not a competition, i just think that she is probably notable actress, that's way I've show on some reliable source with my point. If she work/acted only a single movie then I Would vote delete. she acted in two movies in the lead role. I have found bangladeshi relaible news source in google by her bengali name. Considering everything i do vote weak keep. If this article will delete or keep , nothing to do. as a volunteer i just share my opinion.-Nahal(T)00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Khan has only received press in February and October of 2018. Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Khan fails to meet the requirement as she "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see Kaler Kantho link "ছবিটিতে প্রধান দুই চরিত্রে অভিনয় করেছেন জনপ্রিয় নায়ক বাপ্পি চৌধুরী ও নবাগত নায়িকা অধরা খান।" (lit. translation:Bappy and introducing Adhora are the leading cast of Nayok) and Janakantha link "এ সময় চলচ্চিত্রের পরিচালক শাহীন সুমন, চিত্রনায়ক সাইমন সাদিক, নায়িকা অধরা খান, খল-অভিনেতা জয়রাজ, প্রযোজক শরীফ চৌধুরীসহ অনেকেই উপস্থিত ছিলেন। (lit trans. Adhora is the heroine of Matal). She is the lead actress in both films. And User:Dr42 please stop your WP:IDONTLIKE activities.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These films do not have WP articles nor are they inherently notable. Can you produce any sources that these films are notable? The actors, simply because they are top-billed cast in a film that we know nothing about, are not automatically notable. This is not a difficult question. Look at everyone from Daniel Craig to Nicole Kidman. Those are articles of established film stars. Yours are stubs. They contain non-notable (per WP:GNG) films that don't even have WP articles themselves. Even if you look at a 13 year old actor you'll find an article with more sources and citations (see: Jacob Tremblay). All I'm saying is that you need to corroborate and substantiate your articles. For the third time -- this is not about personal attacks. This is about policy. Try focusing on the quality of articles, not the quantity of new articles. Dr42 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr42: there is no requirement that reliable sources have to be over a particular time period. Nor is the lack of a Wikipedia article a good way to decide a film is not notable - that is explicitly not how we decide notability in either direction. The fact that the current sources in the article are from two months is not a policy-based reason to delete this article. There are eight reliable sources in the article already. How does that fail WP:GNG? If you really want to make up a rule about the time over which the sources are spread, here's an interview from The Daily Star from December 2018. Or you could go back to this piece in the Daily Sun from August 2016. Or this from ARB News 24 from June this year. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are seven articles from October 2018 and one from February 2016. This, in my opinion, does not reach the bar set for WP:SIGCOV. This is less than a year of continuous coverage of a non-notable individual. Khan hardly has enough coverage to warrant more than a few sentences in the article. If Khan is so notable, why isn't there more information about him in the article? Again, per policy, Khan fails to meet the requirement as she "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr42: There are 11 sources, including the three I listed above. These span from 2016 to 2019, so your claim that there is less than a year of coverage is untrue. You have misread the eight (not seven) sources currently in the article - they range from February 2016 to October 2018. Even if that were not the case, there is no requirement in WP:SIGCOV for sources to extend over any given span of time. It simply does not say what you want it to say. She has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, over a range of three years. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are eight sources. Look at the current rendition of the article. Only eight sources. While I confess that I have no idea if they are reputable in Bangladesh, I can say without a doubt that 7 sources from October 2018 and one from February 2016 doesn't automatically push Khan into meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:SIGCOV or WP:N or WP:GNG. It's just not going to happen. The article itself consists of merely four sentences. Please, let us not pretend that this is a significant article worthy of fighting for when in reality, this deletion thread is already many times more than four sentences and no one has even edited the article to substantiate it or provide it with further sources or proof. This is my final word on the topic. It's not notable and vote is not changing. Dr42 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to continue to use the WP:IDONTLIKE excuse, at least understand what it means. As it says in the essay, "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like"." I have, with every edit and tag I've contributed, done so with justification, corroboration, substantiation, and in line with policy and regulations. You, on the other hand, are seemingly stating that I've resorted to saying "I don't like it" or one of its variants. I've provided well-constructed logic and reason to my contributions pertaining to your articles just as I have across all of the other edits I've made on WP. This has nothing to do with you personally. This has to do with your articles -- especially this one, which merely consists of four sentences. Dr42 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Say what you will about your interpretation of WP policy, but it's clear that WP:SIGCOV, WP:N and WP:GNG are not met in this article. These policies are a unified set of guidelines that this four sentence vanity article clearly does not meet - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." There are no sources that discuss Khan in detail. They are about the film and are cursory and trivial at best. Thus, per the above-mentioned policies, the article does not meet WP:GNG and doesn't even meet WP:NACTOR for the reasons given above. My vote is not changing. My vote remains unchanged and it is a resounding Delete since the "topic has [not] received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, [and] it is [not] presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Dr42 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions. I have a low opinion of this article as I see it. But I currently don't intend to argue for either keeping or deleting, because the cited sources and most likely most or all of the sources that could be added are in a language I cannot read. However, I note that (i) although it's referred to above as a "vanity article" no evidence is provided for this being so (and the article is free of the sycophantic language that I associate with vanity articles), and (ii) although the article was and remains flagged with a template saying "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use", the talk page neither says anything about this nor refers the interested editor/reader to an explanation elsewhere. Dr42, why do you say that it is a vanity article? What evidence do you have to suggest that it was created for money? -- Hoary (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answers. Based on the user's edit history and narrow focus, he seems to be cornering the creation of Bangladeshi articles for politicians and actors. I have a suspicion that this individual may be compensated for his work by either the Bangladeshi government, a union (or unions), or even a board of trade or tourism. It's mere speculation. That's why the word "may" is used in the sentence (i.e. "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments) (emphasis added)". It is merely a possibility. As for why I've determined that this is a vanity article, there was formerly an entire essay on vanity articles on WP if I recall correctly, but it's mostly been transferred to this page on COI. Based on the article creator's past, it seems that he has a penchant for a niche of articles as opposed to contributing to all areas of wikipedia. He has a very narrow scope. And that narrow scope of articles, consisting of mainly Bangladeshi politicians and actors, has unfortunately landed the user in hot water a few times. See user talk page, specifically here, here, here, here, and here. My suspicions are merely that: suspicions. That's why words such as "may" and "might" are used as opposed to definitive words such as "undoubtedly" or "provably". As to whether or not the article creator has a personal relationship or friendship that would be a COI we have no way of knowing. I am acting out of an abundance of caution based on the < 24 hours that I've seen this user in action, including the depths he will go to defend the articles he has created when they are simply not notable individuals. Again, if they are notable, and if they do meet GNG, so be it. But if the article has been created solely based on the person's existence without corroborating and substantiating proof, then that's what I think I'd call a vanity article because it serves one purpose -- vanity. It's a four sentence article about an actor that's not notable nor is she engaged in any work that's notable or falls under SIGCOV or GNG. That's really all I have to opine on the subject. Again, my vote is delete. It's a vanity article. The article creator has a narrow scope. And there's not much else to convince me otherwise. Dr42 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On being paid: "It's mere speculation. [...] It is merely a possibility." On vanity: "My suspicions are merely that: suspicions. [...] [I]f the article has been created solely based on the person's existence without corroborating and substantiating proof, then that's what I think I'd call a vanity article because it serves one purpose -- vanity. [...] It's a vanity article." This is feeble stuff, Dr42. You claim to be "acting out of an abundance of caution", but you seem oddly incautious in questioning motivation. Please read and digest WP:AGF. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reviewed/patrolled S. M. Nazmus Shakib's articles in the past and I am not convinced against the allegations against him. The user according to my knowledge has also created biographies about Indian politicians as well apart from Bangladesh related stuff. The right of creating articles related to their home nations cannot be questioned. Abishe (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: not convinced that just two roles, though significant, are enough to meet WP:NACTOR. I feel the article is a bit premature in this respect, but, at the same time, I'm hesitant to be too harsh on the article because it seems as though the actress will become more notable in the near future. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The notability claim here is that it had Leo Award nominations, but those are a regional film award, not a national one, so it would be fine to mention in a properly sourced article but is not an "inherent" notability clincher in and of itself in the absence of any solid sources. But the only real source being cited here at all is the film's IMDb entry, which is not a notability-making source — the other two sources don't actually have anything to do with this film at all, but are being used to pad the article with content about other films the director made after this one, and even on a ProQuest search I was only able to find one review in Vancouver's local newspaper, which is not enough critical attention to get it over the "reviewed by film critics" criterion. And furthermore, the article was created by an editor whose username strongly implies a direct connection to the production company that made the film, a clear conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 15 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 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 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.
I went to PROD this article with a WP:G11 promotional tag but it had already been declined by another user. This is a startup which has gotten some celebrity investors, the article as written fails WP:PROMO, I'm also not sure the sources provided pass WP:NCORP, as all this is at the moment is a startup with the normal startup-y press, and I couldn't find other types of sources online (there was one on CNBC which was similar to the Forbes piece.) SportingFlyerT·C06:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to G11 but it was rejected. No more CSD's for me. The article fails WP:NCORP. It has some coverage due to the celeb investor's that are backing it, but at the end it is another startup, whose coverage is dependent on the fame of it celebs, not the fact it itself is famous or even notable. scope_creepTalk13:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. As Scope creep said, the company's only claim to notability appears to be inherited from the athletes that invested in it. No independent significant coverage, not enough to base a NPOV and non-promotional article off of. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:13, 30 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.
This article was closed before by AfD in 2017. After that, the major events in her life are - contested and "lost" a general election for MP, got a honorary doctorate from Bournemouth uni, contested an election independently and withdrew. Set up a foundation, which imo is not properly covered in media. I don't think anything she did after 2017 garnered enough media to make her notable. Daiyusha (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We read above that "This article was closed before by AfD in 2017." A mere glance at that AfD makes it pretty clear that this is untrue. But if what the AfD says isn't enough, here's how the deleted article (created in 2007) started: "Sophie Cook (born 1974) is a British actress who is most notable for her role of Susan Pevensie in the Chronicles of NarniaBBC miniseries." (That was the second deletion of an article with this title. In 2006, this young fellow had created a single, inane sentence about some unidentified Sophie Cook.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has been featured in several mainstream media publications with in-depth coverage in the UK, as noted above by Ralbegen, with wide coverage from reliable sources. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was very surprised to see this name on the list of AfD, as I remember the extensive coverage when she came out. As others have said, this coverage is more then enough to pass WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 09:52, 24 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 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.
Agreed, Delete. I edited this page 2+ years ago, and put it on my watchlist. As I expected, nothing has been added to improve Notability. – S. Rich (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG or any specific notability criterion such as WP:NPOL. The sources appear to be routine election coverage, mentions in articles where the city itself is the primary topic, and information about awards that do not meet the threshold for inclusion. --Kinut/c21:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Von Ormy TX is nowhere near large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors just because they exist — but this article is referenced about 50 per cent to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all and about 50 per cent to a small smattering of routine local coverage in the local media, which isn't even remotely close to enough to make him more special than other smalltown mayors who don't have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 24 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.
promotional bioof non-notable entrepreneur. Any `my would rest on the awards, but none of the awards are important enough to provide notability DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per issues indicated by DGG furthermore I personally do not condone such WP:PROMO articles so yes a delete is most applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Sources are three smalltown obituaries, a site for the corporation he created (not indep), a genealogy, and one Discover magazine about him that may count towards GNG. I found this source, but it's pretty much about the invention than the inventor, so I'm not sure it counts. Page created by a serial copyright violater. ミラP02:42, 23 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.
Comment I am working on cleaning up the article. I already removed a link to an article that only loosely connected to her.Will vote when finished. Leaning keep.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sources still being added to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notability:People. My major edits are complete, though I may play around with it further, as there seem to be more sources available. I found a surprising level of detail on her life considering it has all come about from oral histories. The article now focuses on facts of her life rather than their provenance. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I already voted Keep above.) The article is now in better shape thanks to DiamondRemley39 but AfD is not cleanup. The bio subject clearly passes GNG. I suggest a speedy close rather than waiting for more SNOW to fall. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 24 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.
Keep The significance of the person is as a videoblogger and entrepreneur. There are authoritative sources on the profile media of Ukraine: Focus, Expert, etc. All spam from the article has already been cleared. 213.87.131.131 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No RS have yet been provided at this AfD that would confirm GNG; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:12, 23 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.
Suggested alternative to deletion - the organisation itself probably does not have enough notability for its own article, but as an alternative to just deleting the article altogether (which contains some useful information about an unusual sport - cf. WP:NOTPAPER) - perhaps we could merge this article with Australian national quidditch team to make a "Quidditch in Australia" page (which could include the national team as well as some information about the local versions of the sport, where some primary sources would be acceptable)? There are quite a few external sources about Quidditch in Australia, including winning the World Cup in 2016 - e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Bookscale (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started adding sources and will keep working on it. Agreed with Bookscale above, this is just a blanket article about quidditch played in Australia; the Australian Quidditch Championships and the bigger VQA and QNSW state leagues could easily have their own articles which would align better with what's in the quidditch template at the bottom of the page. Azizlight (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the organisation, "Quidditch Australia", does not seem to be particularly notable, but despite the title of the page, the content is really about "Quidditch in Australia". Aoziwe (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Sufficient RS to prove GNG, for the specific organisation, have not yet been presented at this AfD; however, there seems to be more RS on the sport itself in Australia; some discussion re ATD and/or merging or renaming, however no clear consensus as yet here either; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to relisting administrator - @Britishfinance:, in your relisting comments, you noted that no one had presented any reliable sources for the organisation. I'm not sure if you have read my comment that listed a whole heap of articles about the sport in Australia (which is why both I and Aoziwe have suggested the article be renamed), and Azizlight has substantially edited the article to strongly improve it. So I think it's a bit unfair to just say that no one has presented any reliable sources. Bookscale (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bookscale, I should have clarified myself (which I have done now above); the issue is that the RS around the specific organisation (Quidditch Australia), seems thin, however, the RS for the sport in Australia seems good. There have beem discussions above on how to fix this (eg Quidditch in Australia etc), but I don’t think a consensus has been reached yet? E.g Is it a seperate variation (like Australian Quidditch), or an identical strain to that of other countries (like Quidditch in Australia). Seems it can be solved, but only by editors who know the topic. All the best, Britishfinance (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC) (PS, I am not an admin).[reply]
Thanks Britishfinance - appreciate you clarifying, as I can see you are in agreement with the editors who have commented here, including me, thank you. I think the consensus (so far) seems to be that the name of the article should be changed to a Quidditch in Australia article, in which Quidditch Australia can be mentioned. But happy for the article to be relisted to see whether there are other ideas. Bookscale (talk) 03:42, 24 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.
nominating for a deletion and redirect after trying to boldly redirect it. There is no evidence that Alexander Taylor is notable independent of his position on several boards/as CEO. There is no in depth coverage and his name is generally only mentioned in passing or as a part of standard business publications. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, I see 9 results from news. 1 is the press release for his becoming COO, 2 & 3 are local news articles about that and his joining the company's board. 4 & 5 are about his grandma giving away her money. 6 is the announcement of his joining the board in his college newspaper. 7 is about Taylor Swift and Lamar Alexander. 8 is about Vanderbilt, his alma mater, whose board he is on. 9 is about wealthy American dynasties and mentions his name. What are you seeing? --valereee (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No desire as yet to Delete, however, the specific RS that would confirm GNG have not yet been provided at this AfD; a non-notable CEO of a notable CORP is likely to become a ReDirect; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of claims that he's notable but no one has provided any actual sources to establish that he is actually notable. Having a job (and being "rich") does not make one notable, nor does being in the family business. He doesn't have any coverage of him as an individual. Praxidicae (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cox Enterprises. Being a COO isn't enough to show notability. Maybe he'll become notable, but right now he's just a CEO who serves on some charitable foundation boards just like every other COO/CEO. --valereee (talk) 16:28, 30 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.
"Airspeed Aviation" is a small small plane charter company, does not meet WP:CORP. In attempts to clean it up, it was converted into a non-compliant DAB page for the multiple non-notable companies that have been known as "Airspeed Aviation". SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least one of the companies listed does appear to be notable. I have rewritten the page as a stub article about that company. The question now is, is this company notable enough to pass WP:GNG? I believe that it is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have now written a new topic over an old topic. If kept, the page now requires a History split. Writing new topics on top of old non notable topics is always the wrong way to do things. It messes with the purpose of attribution histories. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a split only arises if two versions are to be kept? Keeping even one, of any description, is the issue currently under debate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The new focus is actually less covered than a local Canadian charter airline, which would not pass muster either, unfortunately. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of work with the new search results, but it does not bring the article to stand-alone notability. However, I'm changing my !Vote, as below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge → Derby Airfield I'm thinking that the company is so intimately connected with the airfield, that they be covered under a single article; this would also allow introduction of information about the Derby Aero Club as part of the same article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that. One of the multiple is associated with Derby Airfield, but not the rest, not the original topic of the page history. No primary redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two other merge approaches occur to me. First, which direction should the merge go? Which is the more notable, the airfield or the owner-operator? Then, if merged into Derby Airfield might one solution to the multiples problem be to redirect this page to Airspeed (disambiguation), which would in turn link to a suitable section in Derby Airfield and (potentially) to any other articles created for other companies? Hope this makes sense. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that the article has been changed from a disambiguation page of sorts to an article on a company it probably makes sense to close this AfD, keep and and see if it can be expanded. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't keep articles on Topics that are not notable. Perhaps you can point to a number of sources that demonstrate notability? HighKing++ 12:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in the new current version:
(1) Mere mention
(2) Mere mention
(3) Directory information
(4) Promotional, non-independent source for and about the company.
Also note, the page was originally about a Canadian company. Now it’s about an English company. Both fail WP:CORP. Attempts to save the page ignore the mess of its history, which is largely about converting a non-notable company into a WP:DAB-failing DAB page, presumably in response to the many ghit cross-matches, now being attempted to be turned into a different company page that is better, but still not notable.
Since the historical mess (which I admit is of my own thoughtless making) is on non-notable content, why bother to carve it out just so it can be deleted? Easier to leave it there to fester quietly to itself for evermore, it's not going to hurt anybody. But I have no objection if folks think it a useful exercise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 25 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.
Delete, Not only does this article rely entirely upon 2 links to its own website and 1 404 that also seemed to be a primary source, it also reads a lot like promotional material. Devonian Wombat (talk20:54, 25 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.
This article fails to establish notability. The only thing it has is a trivial, hyperfocused listicle that has no real worth. TTN (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The listicle is something, but not enough alone. I came across this, but it's probably not reliable. If I could be convinced it was, I think it might be in the "weak keep" category. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Article consists entirely of the appearance of crawling claws in DnD games, so a separate article is not necessary. JIP | Talk11:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Its claim to notability is that it is one of the weakest D&D monsters? Not really much to say about it then, is there? – sgeurekat•c05:59, 30 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 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.
