Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 18 November	20 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sun and Moon (Middle-earth)

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

This is a pointless article. There is nothing to suggest that the sun and the moon are different in Middle Earth. What next? Clouds (Middle-earth)? Much of the article consists of recording names given to the sun or moon, and documenting various references to the sun and moon. At the time of the first nomination, it was suggested that more references could be found for the article. A decade later, this clearly hasn't happened. This has never been an encyclopedia article and never will be. Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPLOT, WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG. Also contains a lot of possible WP:OR. Serious likely case of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Background material that has little effect on anything. If memory serves, the light from the first appearance of the Moon awoke the Elves, but I think that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget: the sun rose and set every day. Don't you think that's significant?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Background elements do not need to have their own articles. Also, it is doubtful that this would be a plausible redirect page. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom., it is not known what message the reader gets from this pointless article. Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium. Goustien (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is way too much analysis to be ever justified in a full range encyclopedia. This would be justified in an online version of the Tolkien Encyclopedia, but not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The River Company

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

A seemingly non-notable band. The only inline citations are to the band's own defunct website and Myspace page. The external links are all also defunct, but appear to have consisted only of local coverage. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing regarding this band in reliable sources. The article was previously sent to AFD and kept over 12 years ago, however the arguments used there really don't fly today, as the band appears to completely fail WP:NBAND. Rorshacma (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Jackson Free Press article from the external links section is the only coverage of the band I can find aside from mentions. One short article in a local publication isn't enough, in my opinion.Skeletor3000 (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. By strength of argument (sources provided have been unchallenged) indicates that GNG is met, although this article will need some guarding against COI editing, it appears. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Assembly of God Church

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

The article is undersourced and relies on self-reported information about membership. It was nominated for deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but I declined the CSD as it does have at least a claim to notability ("one of the largest churches in India"). However as it stands the article is thin and needs more sourcing. I'm listing here to generate a wider discussion on whether this article should be deleted. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this through article triage for speedy deletion. One of the two sources is a lightweight travel guide site, the other is a little more serious but very niche. Neither substantiate the grandiose claims made in the article, particularly about the size of the congregation. Two of the editors are now blocked as socks and the article was previously deleted and then resurfaced courtesy of one of the socks. Assuming a generous interpretation, this looks like COI editing and at worst, paid editing. Notwithstanding the authorship, having only one possible RS and one very weak source is nowhere near the multiple RSs needed to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is not notable and fails GNG to have their own article on wiki.-Krishna's flute (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 03:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG thoroughly. Looks like COI editing. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 05:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Notable information about the Church is available in the media. it needs to be sourced well.

for eg: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/bengaluru-churches-issue-safety-instructions-to-worshippers/articleshow/69182876.cms https://www.news18.com/news/politics/evangelist-benny-hinns-visit-to-bangalore-rakes-up-controversy-660342.html https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/Blood-donation-camp/article14680982.ece

Someone can edit the article as this is a religious institution but a prominent one in the city of Bangalore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemph (talk • contribs) 05:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a long standing history regarding the church's pastor and promotional editing and sock puppetry as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- A church with an attendance of 25000 (if true) ought to be notable. If so, it ought to be possible to find WP:RS on it and to produce a viable article. Perhaps Davemph can find such and edit him himself. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have articles on Episcopal Church dioceses with total membership (which is higher than even annual attendance) well under 10,000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's some evidence from reliable sources it's a big church - although sources differ from 5,000 to 25,000 attendees - I'm skeptical of the higher numbers- and a pilgrimage site. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified here by Davemph and Bearian it seems to have a claim to pass WP:GNG as is but there are probably more sources offline imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is not supported by RS that can be found in the media.Alex-h (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more commonly known as "Bethel AG Church" locally (I'm from Bangalore). You may find some coverage under this name, like [1], and possibly more in print sources. Dee 03 20:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shafique Farooqi

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

No evidence of any notability. Both refs relate to a single exhibition which is only just barely enough to satisfy BLP but well short of satisfying WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there may be SIGCOV out there, but all I can find are trivial one-sentence mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Störm (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that with the deprecation of PORNBIO, the individual fails to meet other notability grounds (BASIC, ENT) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Steele (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current references are an interview and an award listing. Mr. Steele's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. (The various other references removed in 2018 are obvious press releases/promo.) I looked for additional sources and found only a bit of coverage in a Jeffrey Escoffier book[2], some critical analysis of a pornographic film Steele appeared in[3], quotes from him in Gawker[4] and the Advocate[5], and assorted minor and trivial mentions. Cheers, gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Yes, I could not find much coverage either. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 03:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only basis for notability was the now-deprecated WP:PORNBIO SNG. Independent coverage consists of 1–2 sentence entries in list articles and incidental mentions, not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. Porn industry honors don't satisfy WP:ENT without acknowledgment by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Apes & Androids. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Moon (Apes & Androids album)

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

Not notable. Google produces two reviews for this album. One is from Pitchfork, which I'd give some weight as far as notability. The other is a blog. I don't believe these reviews amount to significant coverage. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apes & Androids as it is the main artist's page. This could be a viable search and the (very) limited coverage could be put up there. I am somewhat uncertain on whether or not the band itself meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia so I would not oppose an outright deletion though per the nominator's statement/reasoning. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this solution. I looked into the band's notability as well, and they do have several articles from multiple independent sources that feature them. The article could be improved, but source material is out there. Skeletor3000 (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! I think a redirect would be the best option then. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Cruickshanks

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

Footballer who doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTY - only known appearances in unofficial wartime second tier, so doesn't appear to have played in a fully professional league. No evidence of sufficient coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a complete miss-read of information? Are we sure it's not John Cruickshank who could of played some football during the war? 1940s is a tough one to record. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything to suggest it's the same person. Jellyman (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia. Any worthwhile content can be merged from history if consensus of editors supports that. Sandstein 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Croats

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

POV fork riddled with OR and speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article author). According to the latest census, there are about 16,000 Orthodox Croats living in Croatia. The article speaks abaut Orthodox Croats and their history in Croatia. All the historical facts that exist in the article have a source in some book and census. That's why article is written. I suggest you don't delete it, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forf which we already have an article Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia.Slatersteven (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the history of the Orthodox Croats and the information that exists, there are also Orthodox persons who have been considered Croats throughout history so this can also be put into the article. It does not fall under the theme Orthodoxy in Croatia because everyone is mentioned here. Otherwise, in an article about Orthodox Croats exist specific information about self-declar of Orthodox Croats when they entering to the USA(19th and 20th century), it is from the book of historian.^[1] This article about Orthodox Croats and it would mean a lot to them since during the communist era were not written about them. Mikola22 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need two articles on essentially similar subjects, thus any useful material here (rather then speculation and OR) can be moved to the other article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a standalone article because in this article peoples can find out more about Orthodox Croats, which is and intention of this article. Many Orthodox Croats do not know history of their ancestors and there is this article. Everyone can get involved and start putting new information because in communism this was not allowed and therefore we have less historical data. So we have in this artical some historical material which and other historians can start using. Putting this historical data and claims from various history books into other Wikipedia articles makes no sense except to separate it all and later nobody will know what these data telling. Perhaps it is your intention not to talk about it? There is no reason not to talk about it, these people(Orthodox Croats) live in Croatia today. It is a Croatian minority that must be protected and not assimilated into other communities. And that's why this article is on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone minds this and that everyone will accept it. Mikola22 (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They can find that out inn the other article as well, its hardly huge and needs expansion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find all information from this article on Wikipedia that all interested see in which Wikipedia articles such data exist. Put links to those articles. Mikola22 (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They can find that out inn the other article as well, In which Wikipedia articles can I find information about Orthodox Croats? Put links to these articles. Mikola22 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need two articles that contain the same information.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, if you claim something then prove it. If you can't prove that They can find that out inn the other article as well, then this is exactly reason that this article must exists. What you are doing is not in good faith, and this can be seen from this example. First you have to think of 17,000 peoples in Croatia who would like that peoples in the world know about their existence and history. It is a minority that should be respected and protected. You should be the first to support it. Mikola22 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Its not in another article" is not a reason to keep, it a reason to merge (at best). We have separate article when the parent article becomes to large, not because its not there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a history of Ortodox Croats, and a 16 thousand people in Croatia which calls themseves that... --Čeha (razgovor) 13:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already covered at Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia. What novel content there is appears to come from synthesis of outdated sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is already an article titled Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or rather) Redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia-- This is a horrid article, stringing together a series of biased quotes, without much serious analysis or NPOV treatment of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do a WP:TNT rewrite, or redirect, much of the article is WP:SYN and WP:OR and missing context but the topic is definitely notable. Some people in Croatia are indeed both Orthodox Christians and identify as Croats. E.g. [6] - quotes the census (verified: [7]) that out of 190,000 Orthodox in Croatia, 16,000 identify as Croats (the others are mostly Orthodox Serbs). This group is unfortunately not mentioned at Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia. See [8] for treatments in RS. This is of course a touchy subject since Serb ultranationalists deny their existence while Croat ultranationalists try to inflate their number or claim all other Orthodox ethnicities in Croatia as Croats (see Serbianisation and Croatisation). I'm not quite sure if there's enough about this for a standalone article (not much in the news and I'm not familiar with the topic enough to know in which books to look), but one could at least document the social commentary on the topic. Daß Wölf 23:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on balance. There is something here, but this is not it. Guy (help!) 01:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia per User:Daß Wölf.desmay (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective mergeand redirect to Eastern Orthodoxy in Croatia. Any merger should examine the source material carefully to avoid original synthesis or research. As others have stated, it's possible that this might be viable article, and no prejudice against article recreation if better sourcing and policies regarding OR and NPOV are followed closely.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/djelatnik/mario.grcevic

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to a Redirect with low support to Keep; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I am an Orthodox Christian myself and can see blatantly POV materials, but it can be better rewritten as part of a Orthodox Christianity in Croatia article MenfesKidus40 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say that this is mostly history data and in the time of communism it was forbidden writte about that. For that reason we have less information in the books. Regarding "Croatian ultranationalists" it has nothing to do with them because it is original data in the Croatian archives. If someone wants to explore its origin they can do so by going to the archives of each city in Croatia. In most of these archives they will find original data for his family in some village, area etc. Unfortunately this information mostly speaks about Vlachs. Some archive because of that is not "ultranationalistic" but he presents data that exist. Many peasants flee to the Vlachs area and converted to Orthodoxy but they are Croats so we do not know why someone called himself as Orthodox Croatian, are they descendants of Croats or Vlachs we don't know that. This (origin) can be written in a separate section in the article. Finally, entering America many orthodox people declared themselves as Croats and this should be respected. This article is for all of them. Mikola22 (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge if there is anything worth merging) - This is a better solution than plain delete, as the present name is a credible search term. This meets the objection of someone (above) who wanted to keep. If there are deficiencies in the target, they can be cured by editing, but they are much fewer than for the present article, which lacks NPOV. Clearly there are strong nationalist views at stake here, on which I want to express no viewPeterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge (if there is anything worth merging) and redirect.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax (band)

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

UPE from indeffed editor. Promotion for Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Sources identified last time, [9], [10] are both interviews lacking independent analysis, insufficient independence. Also questionable reliability, [11], [12] (?every single article by the one author) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep regardless of the unfortunate UPE the article can be cleaned up. I base my !vote on the article. There is enough notability. There is some refs to be found in alternative music press: [13]. Wm335td (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What refs? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This article already survived an AfD earlier this year, with a flimsy "no consensus" result, but here the same nominator is trying again with the same rationale. The band has indeed been profiled in the alternative press: e.g. [14] and they have been profiled by Rolling Stone India: [15]. I admit it's not much so that's why my vote is "weak keep", but the band's notability and the conflict of interest with the article's author are two different issues. If the band is deemed notable, the article can be rescued from the clutches of a paid promoter and improved by the volunteer community. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DOOMSDAYER520. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2nd nomination for the same weak sources, COI in terms of UPE and no changes were made via volunteer community after the first flimsy no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerstalk3r22 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Rockerstalk3r22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The sources that claim their singles "Sway"^[1] and "Moon Moon Baby"^[2] have charted are not correctly sourced. They share the same citation and leads directly to Chartmetric.io homepage. The chart positions for these songs are unverified. As per Rockerstalk3r22, corrections have not been made to this article since the first non-consensus. ^[3] Lioness mames (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Lioness mames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep per doomsdayer520. In a cursory search there appears to be just enough RS to meet the criteria at WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to weak keep; try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was the original "weak keep" voter above, and if that is the ultimate result I will work on the article and remove anything that may represent a conflict of interest or attempted promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death Rattles

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

This show is very likely to be a hoax, created as a framework to a book of short horror stories of the same name. See discussion here. Additionally, this article shouldn’t be rewritten to be about the book due to it not meeting WP:NOTE standards. Rariteh (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rariteh (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 20:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the only contribution ever made by User:Deathrattlerxxx, who created the page. In the case of a suspected hoax, this is invariably a very bad sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a single source. There is some coverage of a book that also describes this article's content, but that is on a fantasy fiction site. Have never seen a hoax here, but this looks like one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that this unsourced article has existed for over 8 years is a major dakr mark on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy Deleted G5 as created by a banned user and having no other edits. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Parson

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

No evidence of any significance or notability. A very minor court case but it appears to be somebody's grudge. Just the single reference - the court record. No evidence that any RS has taken any interest in this. Only editor is the author. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 20:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947^{'s public account} 20:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Grace

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

Tabloid fodder. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not encyclopedic. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 68.134.154.158 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP violations galore. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although Article doesn’t really establish why she should be in the encyclopedia. I believe a quick google research indicates she has been discussed in several reliable press. As per that I think the WP:42 may apply here as if we are to be sincere she is quite notable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addendum: depending on the success of the upcoming movie, the article may be recreated. El_C 04:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Botchii

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

Seems like WP:TOOSOON. In-depth coverage limited to niche WP:INTERVIEWS. No awards for himself yet (his recent film won some niche awards). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article lacks in-depth coverage in realiable press.Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been edited, sources are valid.Powertolife (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and he hasn't won notable awards for his film Artik. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Edited again and added sourced for a notable award for his film Artik, it won award from Dragon Con and the source ^[4]Powertolife (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Awards for his film don't extend to personal awards. WP:NOTINHERITED. Film directors need to win awards that are 'for them'. Awards for a particular movie are shared by everyone involved in that movie. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But all the sources for him are valid and yes i agree with you, his film only won Best features. Correct me if i am wrong, he have a notable film and interview from valid sources, It should allow him to stay in Wikipedia page and its a stub page. Powertolife (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:INTERVIEW is not the best source. And the awards are minor. DragonCon is not Oscars, I don't think that a producer whose short movie won a niche award like this is encyclopedic. Where do we draw the line? Nobody has called him an important person and described his contributions to the field, he faols WP:NCREATIVE. For me, sorry, it's WP:TOOSOON yet. But we will see what others think, the comments are split. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:INTERVIEW Edited the page and added a source from dreadcentral.com and dailydead.com interview of Tom Botchii, dailydead.com, dreadcentral.com, horrorchannel.co.uk and nofspodcast.com interviews can take as secondary sources because this sources are used by other Wikipedia articles too, I understand your point too and lets see what others think...Thank you Powertolife (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Powertolife: Can you cross your second vote? Editors are entitled to a single vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and allow six months for further gestation. BD2412 T 19:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The sources indicate he is approaching notability, but there is just not enough quality RS to pass WP:SIGCOV. WP:TOOSOON applies here.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ His notable work Artik, as you said he is approaching to notability, Many one feature film director's have Articles and why not him.. I also feel WP:TOOSOON should not be applied here based on his sources Powertolife (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Powertolife, you only get to vote once. Repeating yourself isn't going to get the article kept. Bondegezou (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career
^ https://chartmetric.io/
^ "2019 Dragon Con Independent Film Festival Winners". dragoncon.org. Retrieved 2019-10-28.

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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scump

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

All are unreliable sources/non notable person.--121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133 Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As a Nominator, Topic has no reliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked[reply]

*Delete. Lacks of sources and all the contents are just trivia. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Checkuser note: Every !vote above including the IP nominator is either an open proxy, or a banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close for this bad nomination. A single purpose IP addresses can not nominate a group of articles for deletion, and you shouldn't do it for them. Since the only ones appearing to try to delete it are now blocked sock puppets, kindly close this bad nomination. Dream Focus 05:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, well there is no such rule that I can find that prevents IP from nominating articles. Even if we later ban them, I think they should be left open until there is a clear "keep" consensus. If you wish to change the rules, hold a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Then Keep [16] "The most popular player in Call of Duty, Scump finally won his first world championship in 2017". Winning the world championship in a notable competition and making $652,140 from this, makes him notable. Google news search shows a lot of results to go through, but not bothering since winning the championship alone makes him notable. Dream Focus 22:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, WP:BLP1E? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They get coverage for more than just that one tournament win. Hit Google news search at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 00:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the sources provided are unreliable like YouTube, Call of Duty Esports Wiki, Twitter (although some of them are justified since it is the Abner's Twitter but still does not establish notability) per WP:RSP. Most of the other sources are small mentions. Some of the sources do not even mention him like the Scuf Gaming source. Therefore does not establish signficant and thus fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on the two post-checkuser !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [17]] Seems to be a bit of a whale on social media. 2.5 million followers on Twitter, 4.15 million followers on Youtube. scope_creep^Talk 16:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

undefined*:Scope creep, social media presence doesn't automatically means notability. He would need to pass the WP:GNG first. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody has that number of followers, which are verified and close to the population of Scotland, and their videos have been played more than 520million times, then they are notable in anybody's book. That is coverage. They don't play themselves. It is unfortunate the subject works in a industry that is still fairly new, probably less than five years, but it is undergoing stellar growth. I did find a ref on Reuters which combined with what's there already makes WP:THREE references. It is sufficient. scope_creep^Talk 17:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view WP:BLP1E as applying here. This is the man's career and the work he has done is consistent with a career. scope_creep^Talk 18:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not in my wheelhouse, but I can see that the player is plenty notable. Perhaps passes WP:ANYBIO for awards and WP:GNG for coverage. I have to wonder idf the Nominator did a WP:BEFORE. Esports Earnings, Red Bull, Top Ten Highest Earning Player, Venture Beat, He is Called a World Champion covered on ESPN, One ES Sports, Paste Magazine. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, nominated on behalf of IP... --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This local news profile is the only source I've seen which is definitely reliable and definitely significant coverage. There is an ESPN mention to go with the interview. I'm not sure which of those e-sports sites listed are reliable, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met, I'm not voting either way since only a couple of them need to be reliable but the article desperately needs to be updated if it's kept, as only one of the 20 sources is credible at all. Call of Duty Wikis? Youtube? Tweets? A list of everyone who graduated in his high school class? That's what you'll get from the current sources! Needs to be tagged for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 10:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites unreliable sources such as wikis and tweets. If notable, about which I have no opinion, needs total recreation based on reliable sources. Sandstein 15:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Harker Spring

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

Page was created in 2006 and has not been substantially altered since; has been tagged for notability since 2012. No reason to believe that this spring is notable. Emeraude (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any coverage, and give that it is a spring, it is not likely to have attracted much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - towns, rivers, mountains, and seas are notable, but springs are springs. Even assuming this was created in good faith, there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. The only semi-reliable source is a single-line listing. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Springs can be notable like everything else. But like most, this one isn't. It does exist, with a reliable source. But no coverage for GNG. Can't think of any reasonable redirect target. MB 02:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Solution

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

Notability concerns. References are Twitter, Youtube, iTunes store and the like. The "US Environmental Songs" chart doesn't appear credible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I can find giving any weight whatsoever to notability under WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there are no sources that provide significant coverage, and there is no indication of notability outside of that guideline. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Upahar Gruh

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

References do not establish notability. Inclusion in a "food lover's guide" from 1994 and comparable restaurant-guide articles isn't enough. (The referenced H. Kanitkar is a cricketer who happens to like the food there; to put that in U.S.-centric language, a cheesesteak place in Philadelphia that Bryce Harper praises on ESPN doesn't solely for that reason become Wikipedia-notable. Pat's Steaks is notable for many other cultural reasons that this likely comparable restaurant isn't.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from what I can see, this article is best at original research. The place itself is not notable. References given are mostly primary source or secondary with trivial mention. Delete it.-Krishna's flute (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Article creator) To give background, the subject is an eating place located in Pune, among India's largest cities and amongst the 100 most populous cities in the world, so when there is mention of the place as Pune's best etc., it is best in one of India's and world's largest cities. There are six (five, when nominated) independent, reliable sources referenced, while the nominator only mentions two. The first informs about celebrity endorsement, and is dated January 2000. [18] The second is dated December 2008, the title is "In search of Misal", and the subject is one of the five places mentioned, given its own paragraph.[19]The third from September, 2002, gives the subject a notable mention amongst multi-cuisine and multi-class eating places in Pune, with its name in bold type and its own paragraph.[20] The fourth source[21] as mentioned is from 1994 is an international food guide good enough to be referenced by the Wall Street Journal.[22] The fifth source is a twenty and half minute video, dedicated to the subject, in the popular programme[23] Aamhi Saare Khavayye in 2012.

Thus the subject clearly confirms to WP:ORGIN that is " the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." The mention in sources is spread over 24 years, 1994-2018. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I request Krishna's flute to look up the definition of the terms original research, primary sources, secondary sources and what is not "trivial" since they have used them in justification of their vote. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listings, listings, listings. They don't suffice; notability rests on in-depth coverage. Granted, this restaurant has a few more mentions than random anonymous food stall XYZ, but there's still quite a gap to "of encyclopedic interest". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At present the article is pure (pardon the pun...oh dear) WP:PROMO. That might not be a problem if it was possible to establish notability and the article could be amended, however, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The CRICINFO, Mirror, BusinessTravellerIndia, Penguin 1994 and Condé Nast Traveller India references are all advertorial and/or directory listings - these cannot constitute notability. WP:CHAIN does not apply (nothing significant about the location - a single TV episode is incidental). --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viemens Bamford

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

Notability concerns as well as WP:BLP1E. Being admitted to college at a young age is a single event that is not of particular importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage outside the story that he got admitted to university at a young age.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murdo Maclean

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

Upper-level civil service functionary who was made a Knight Bachelor (lowest rank of honour) in the 2000 Birthday Honours and thus rated an entry in the UK Who's Who. None of these appear to be sufficient signs of notability for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot find SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: firstly, a knighthood is not the "lowest rank of honour", but it constitutes a fairly selective and prestigious type of state honour above a large number of other awards at companion, officer or member grade (e.g. the CBE, OBE and MBE). There are about 20 knights bachelor appointed in the twice-yearly honours lists out of a UK population of over 60 million people, and for that reason knighthoods are typically held to meet WP:ANYBIO#1. Aside from that, I've added further sources where he is the subject – two articles in The Times (one entirely about him and the other substantially so), plus discussion of his work in one of Andrew Marr's books; there is more still out there, according to Google searches, but I think this clearly passes notability threshold now. His entry in the UK version of Who's Who, which is selective, published by Oxford University Press and not a vanity publication, is further evidence of this (IMO very clear) notability. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. All knights are notable per WP:ANYBIO. We have always held that anyone who holds a CBE or above satisfies those criteria. If the nominator thinks a knighthood is the lowest rank in the honours system they clearly know absolutely nothing about the British honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. ミラ P 01:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner Circle (professional wrestling)

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

This is new faction with no proven notability. WP:TOOSOON Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's barely a month old as of this writing and for the most part they can only be described as toadies for Chris Jericho, the only other members thus far to do something relevant are Santana and Ortiz, and they have their own article anyway. If the other members or the group as a whole does something of significance then we could talk, but so far not.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The members of this group haven't done anything of note yet, and the group is still pretty new. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON to me, but no prejudice against recreation if the group does things that are notable. Hog Farm (talk) 4:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete As other users siad, it's TOOSOON. Maybe in a few months, but right now, it's too soon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the appearance of Sammy, Santana, and Ortiz at Hager's last Bellator fight, where they were acknowledged as being his stablemates and interviewed by the Bellator broadcasters contribute to their notability as a group? Because that would be significant third-party coverage, in my mind. oknazevad (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Inner Circle is the biggest stable in AEW, with the World Champion. im sure it's gonna be notable. But right now, there is no much content for an article. Maybe in a few weeks/months. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, the article is very short, but length of article has no bearing on notability, which is a property of the subject of the article. It's very possible for an article to poorly demonstrate the notability of a subject. oknazevad (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously has already met notability criteria. It is the primary faction in the promotion. Has been mentioned heavily on every episode. Maintains a large membership. Appeared at non-AEW events. Has 500K hits on google and several sources from a variety of publications including Forbes, CBS Sports, and Newsweek.Will C 07:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm tempted to vote delete due to the stable's relative newness and lack of accomplishments, but I have ultimately decided to lean to the option of keeping the article. It's obvious that the stable is going to be built up strongly in AEW, so it is probably better to keep the article rather than deleting it, and then remaking it when the group accrues more accolades and/or experience as a unit. As Wrestlinglover pointed out, the group already has a strong base of notability due to it having many hits on Google. So for now, I'm leaning towards a keep, but if anyway has any strong points on why it should be deleted other than WP:TOOSOON, I may change my mind. - Ducktech89 19 November 2019, 11:08 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is roughly split equally between keeping and deleting. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1 month is most certainly enough, especially when this faction is involving all notable wrestlers. No need to delete just for recreating one day. Shashank5988 (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chetcuti

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessman, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear our notability standards for businesspeople. Of the 24 footnotes here, 14 are primary sources, two are blogs and two are offering stray verification of tangential facts about other things without mentioning the subject's name at all in conjunction with them, which means that fully 75 per cent of the sources are doing absolutely nothing at all in terms of establishing his notability -- and of the just six references that are WP:GNG-eligible coverage in real media, every last one of them is purely routine local coverage in the Detroit and/or Traverse City MI media markets, with no evidence being shown of any wider coverage. As always, a businessperson is not automatically entitled to have a biographical article just because he happens to be part-owner of a company that has a Wikipedia article about the company -- nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of more than just a small handful of purely local coverage in his own hometown media markets. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michael Chetcuti

Thank you for bringing up your concerns and reasons why you believe this article ought to be deleted. I have reduced the content and edited the wording about his businesses. The article contains information about Michael Chetcuti, his foundation The Michael Chetcuti Foundation, his conservation efforts in Michigan, and his work restoring an Art Deco Home in Miami Beach. Michael Chetcuti is more than an American businessman WP:BLP from Detroit, MI. He is also an American Musician as lead singer in the band: The Chet Offensive, which has an album on music sharing platforms such as amazon and apple muisc and is recognized by Google with a Knowledge Panel. and an American Designer. American Expedition Vehicles and Quality Metalcraft Inc. are large businesses in the United States. These businesses distribute throughout the United States, employ hundreds of individuals, have contributed to major construction/design projects such as the MotorCity Casino Hotel, and supply auto-parts/kits to companies like General Motors and Jeep. The Michael Chetcuti Foundation is 501(c)(3)has also worked with companies such as General Motors to fundraise for victims of AIDS and has made significant contributions to Michigan trusts and charities. Connor —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, having an album on music sharing platforms such as Amazon and iTunes is not an automatic notability freebie for a musician either; to get a Wikipedia article for music, he would have to be shown to pass a notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC (such as having an actual charting hit single, winning a Grammy, undertaking a national tour that generates ongoing coverage, and on and so forth.) By the same token, being a designer is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of reliably sourced evidence of his significance as a designer, and having a charitable foundation is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of reliably sourced evidence of his significance as a philanthropist. The number of employees who work for his companies is not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about him. And on and so forth: notability is not a factor of the things you say, it's a factor of how well the things you say can be referenced to a significant volume and depth and range of media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat,Thank you for your reply, the external links to the Chet Offensive music was not used as a source on the Wikipedia article, Michale Chetcuti nor was the google knowledge panel link about the band. I respect removing mention of the music from the article- I just wanted to convey that there is record label about the Chet Offensive. The entirety of the page ought not be deleted because there are many sources that verify notable achievements and work accomplished not simple mentions of the subject in everyday news. As we go through this talk page I would value your help in trimming the article down rather than supporting to delete it in its entirety. The Michael Chetcuti Foundation, Chetonka Preservation, and 1301 Lenox Art Deco Restoration sections are notable and sourced, those ought to be considered reasonable sections under Michael Chetcuti as those sources tell the story of the foundation, property easement and history, and the Miami beach art deco residence that has been restored. There are other articles on Wikipedia that mention Michael Chetcuti's business and so he ought to have a page that has mention of these businesses linked to him while those texts should not be "advertorialized". It is not my intention to advertise for this individual and as a new editor to Wikipedia any input would be helpful. It is a matter of fine tuning the article rather than deleting it entirely. I will continue to work on the article fine tuning it and searching for additional sources. I value your time on this discussion and wish to only improve the article, not delete it, as there are many other aspects aside from his business with American Expedition Vehicles and Quality Metalcraft Inc. to consider in support of an Article existing for Michael Chetcuti. I welcome a healthy discussion on the matter and value your input and experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorgrill (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nauseating promotion that looks a lot like something a client would be paying for.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sections that were considered promotional by the Wikipedia community have been removed. Thank you for the feedback so the article may be improved as to meet the standard policy, not deleted. Six references are WP:GNG-eligible coverage in real media. The remaining sections meet the minimum requirements for keeping the article. connorgrill

@Connorgrill:, I left a message at your talk page about WP:Badgering. Everyone knows what your position is so you do not need to leave long paragraphs in response to each !voter.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wildly promotional. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sections that were considered promotional have been removed. Thank you for the feedback so the article may be improved not deleted. Thank you for the feedback, GPL93.connorgrill

GNG is definitely not established either, most of the remaining sources are not significant coverage of the subject himself (IE: a write up of a local charity golf tournament that he donated a sponsorship to isn’t about him, but the golf tournament). I did a WP:BEFORE search and didn’t find enough to suggest notability. GPL93 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sections remaining meet the neutral point of view WP:NPOV as Advertorialized content has been removed. I value the community’s guidance on this and hope to better my Wikipedia writing skills. 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. – WP:N based on the six sources meet the criteria of reliability in WP:GNG and so those should be enough to establish verification of information remaining. The article has been significantly reduced in information and I hope that anyone reading this would feel it appropriate to assist in keeping the article and make it better, not longer. Thank you for your thoughts and assistance in improving Wikipedia. I value your time and critiques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by connorgrill (talk • contribs)

Comment I tried to clean up the article but there is a fairly persistent campaign to add inane details that I can only see as promotional. This is promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TNT. It would require a huge re-write to turn this resume into an article. Let's assume this guy is notable based on his invention/design of some car part. My concern is that we'd be overwhelmed with crappy articles about car parts makers and their small foundations. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Lagnado

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

A 15 year old amateur soccer player does not cross the notability threshold. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, search found pretty much just social media accounts. No sources to meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a young Non-notable amateur footballer. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. There are many talented 15-year-old soccer players in high schools around the world. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person quite clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#American_football/Arena_football/Canadian_football as he has not yet played any major tournaments. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Wallimann

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

Creator of the article has requested this be deleted. They also indicate that they hired the account paid to edit this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wallimann appears not to have a Google Scholar profile, but according to Publons, he has an h-index of 68 and 16,670 citations overall [24]. 38 of his 248 publications are in the triple-digit range for citations. We'd generally take this as passing WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wallimann's citation record looks to be a pass of WP:NPROF C1, and this is backed up by the Vogt Prize. The article could use a few more citations, but otherwise appears to be a respectable stub. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically all the text is by the creating account User:LarsCedric which has requested deletion by email. No opinion beyond that of if it should be developed and kept or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF. Be careful what you pay for, as Gordon Sondland knows. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A google search indicates he has in-depth significant coverage in reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tabrez Ansari lynching

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

This article is just propaganda of anti-hindu people. This received media attention only in July where incident happened and again in September during inquiry. I do not think wikipedia is news portal. This lynching is not major crime and it is written in very poor interest like propaganda. This article is written like story. This should be deleted at any cost. If some wants to add then add details like why this happened like Tabrez was doing theft of bike. This is not here. This is one sided propaganda. I request admins of Wikipedia to just delete it. Jai Bajrangbali. Jai Shri Ram. Bharat Mata Ki Jai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajarangbali ki jai (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This gained enough traction amd media attention. And FYI this account was made just 12 min ago but somehow he knows wikipedia rules like how to put article under deletion and othersEdward Zigma (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. There's good coverage, and not just from July. [25][26][27][28][29]. More in the article. Article can be improved, but that is no reason for deletion. WP:BLP applies per WP:BDP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This incident was heavily reported by media and still any case proceedings gets duly reported by media. This incident was most talked and one of the most brutal and merciless incident which has it's own place. As per WP:GNG, it can be allowed on wikipedia.Edward Zigma (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a routine news story and was covered by the media worldwide. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the incident itself was sadly not that notable, but the worldwide reaction to the attack, and the way politicians from several parties used it to inflame tensions, made it more notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move Subject is notable enough to be covered by international media, but should be renamed to Death of Tabrez Ansari to reflect the Wiki standard of neutrality. There were in fact many of such deaths, to which future merger may be more suitable.UaMaol (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a death as a mob was invovled in this. So this is termed as lynching and thebsame way it was reported everywhere else. Next future merger has no significane as daily MURDER doesn't prompt Prime Minister of the country to show grief.Edward Zigma (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the individual in question was killed, then a death had occurred without question. On Wikipedia, the convention for cases where the event of an individual is more notable than the individual themselves, "Death of...", "Murder of...", "Killing of...", "Disappearance of...", etc. are used. Even if he was lynched, it would be more appropriate to have the article entitled "Death of..." not only to reflect this, but because of the presumption of innocence (see WP:BLPCRIME). A Merger with an article encompassing all recent events or as suggested below would probably be more appropriate for this. UaMaol (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then better convention would be Lynching of Tabrez Ansari as this is case of lynching, as wikis conventional naming. And no other lynching article is merged there, coz this is page about incident itself which has it's own background, reasoms, case proceedings which are duly reported by media. Edward Zigma (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What article would that be? Violence against Muslims in India only has "Major incidents". I don't think any of the Category:Lynching deaths in India articles are mentioned there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to violence against Muslims in India. The article is based on chasing headlines and looks like someone had written one story with high POV and sympathy for the victims. Here are some points for which articles must be deleted:
1. Apart from GNG, we see WP: LASTING and WP:EVENT to have article about it. This article has almost no lasting effect apart from coverages like what is happening in court and police. To have encyclopaedic value, lasting is required. Media is hungry for TRP and they are giving coverages.
2. We also see this article is POV fork and chasing headlines like saying VHP is saffron body, which lead to uproar, his uncle visited him, as it is mentioned there in sources. This is written in fancy and in POV style.
3. Neutral version of this article is not available, so it is better to delete it after merging to list of violence against muslim in India.
4. Article is not balanced even. Article doesn't cover any points from accused like subject was allegedly stealing bike, police officers have given some other judgement and then some other. But their details have not been given.
5. Lastly, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS to cover news here. Article at its best fails notability and just chasing headlines. So, I vote for delete.-Krishna's flute (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answer- I will try to answer all your problems in this-
1. This article has lasting significance because this incident triggered nationwide protests and it was not only a simgle event.
2. There is nothing like chasing headlines. What happened is written and properly cited. There is no POV because I researched deep in to the article, and cited the sources. That's why you have to read the sources. There may be single POV left but alnost all of what is writtem is from BBC reporting on the incident. See even BBC reported this incident. Which clearly shows this was not some everyday lynching. I can ensure almost everythimg and every lline written in the article is from a well cites source
3. The article is written as it was. May be somethings left out , but we are working on it.The article shows what happened nothing more nothing less.
4. and at last you says, this is nnot news. But I want you to think that your daily news doesn't prompt prime minister of the country to show grief on that. But tthis article does.

This incident was lynching and you ccan check that from any citation provided. You can google that too. This incident was not a murder as a mob was involved in it. So no reason to call it murder. This article has its standlalone significance. This incident can be to other pages too. But if you think this is not lynching them please check the cited articles or do your own research. The title was made as this incident was reported in news and media houses. I did not add a single POV on this. Everything is from the sources. But even if anything left out, we will work on that.Thank you.Edward Zigma (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because few politicians gave reactions is not enough to have Wikipedia article. And what I am seeing from article is the article has high one sided view. And creator should read bludging on process before commenting on each opposite vote. -Krishna's flute (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not replying to you, but wamt to ask you that just because a few politicians react means Prime Minister of India is just a few politician?

And since you said one sided then let me calrify that almost every line is the article has citation and proof. Edward Zigma (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is very long discussed in media. This incident is lynching. There is no reason to tag it as death. It was not like 2-3 people were involved. There was arrest of 11 people and many cops got suspended. Video itself shows mob. Then how could we deny that it's not lynching. This incident was reported and discussed and already tagged as lynching.Edward Zigma (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NEVENT. Also, the article needs to be started from scratch for merge with another article. Present article contains commentary and opinions. Sankoswal (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:INDEPTH. ∯WBG^converse 10:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes our WP:GNG criteria with the amount of international coverage recieved. The links posted above and in the article are sufficient to demonstrate notability hence I am not reposting the same. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT as has been covered by numerous state, national, and international independent sources over a period of time. in addition to those listed by editors above, there is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation "Muslim man dies after being beaten for hours, forced to chant Hindu slogans" that ties this in with the apparent increase in religious intolerance/violence in India since the 2014 election, and from NDTV ""Jharkhand Not Lynchistan": Chief Minister Counters Opposition Tag" that discusses the state political machinations related to this death. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plainly notable based on significant and ongoing coverage of the lynching and murder, and equally plainly not propaganda as we define it based on PM Modi (a known Hindu nationalist) speaking in parliament about it. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs cleaning up, its not clear when and where the death was caused - perhaps we don't know yet. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Disregarding GCUgreyarea's input, because as a General Contact Unit they have a conflict of interest... and are also a SPA. Sandstein 18:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sublimed

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional concept that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Term mentioned in few outside works but just as one-sentence repetition of fictional universe plot. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Culture#Death. Useful content regarding The Culture society.--GCUgreyarea (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The current sources do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure PLOT. Kacper IV (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Challenges. Sandstein 18:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Sprite challenge

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

This viral challenge doesn't seem to meet GNG. The sources provided are a local paper with a few paragraphs about the challenge [30] and a student newspaper which discusses it in passing [31]. The local paper is the only source I could find that approaches significant coverage. All other references to this challenge in reliable sources are limited to brief mentions among lists of other Internet challenges, e.g.: [32], [33], [34]. [35]. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Challenges and move sources to that page, if not already present. Hyacinth (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamia School, Gujar Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - founded in 1890, so I think this one passes. But we need more sources. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MenfesKidus40 Just curious, how you verified that it was founded in 1890? See WP:V and WP:RS. Störm (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MenfesKidus40 blocked for spamming. Störm (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence it even exists, much less is 119 years old, from reliable sources; see this sadness. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shakhban Dzhabrailov

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

Could not be prodded as previously prodded by a now blocked user. Fails WP:NFOOTY as the RPFL is now not a WP:FPL league, part of a systematic cleanup of a large number of non-notable footballers. No indication of wider WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources that satisfy the GNG (could barely find anything AT ALL). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A check in both English and Russian gives me no results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beast Wars toys

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

Trivial toy catalogue. TTN (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of non-notable toys and fancruft. Hog Farm talk 21:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:FANCRUFT. All the blue links end up redirecting to this list or to other general articles relating to the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a catalogue of toys. JIP | Talk 13:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeljack

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. The one reception link does not currently work, but it seems like a trivial mention anyway. TTN (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appear to be no academic or journalistic sources that discuss this character. Furthermore, the IGN article is merely a list of the website's favourite characters in the franchise. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. lullabying (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of non notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (UnderMyHead) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State–Notre Dame football rivalry

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

Not a rivalry, just two teams who meet periodically. Of the 3 sources for this so far rivalry, one is bleacher report (Which fails WP:RS) the others are articles with the use of rival or rivalry only in the headline. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the time both teams were excellent (1993–94) the Tampa Bay Times did a survey showing Florida State fans at least somewhat viewed Notre Dame as a rival: [www.newspapers.com/image/339689502/]. However, I'm still a delete !vote - it's not a true WP:NRIVALRY in the sense that USC-Notre Dame, Michigan-Notre Dame, et cetera would be, and there's no coverage outside of about 1994 or 1996, when the teams played important games against each other. SportingFlyer T·C 13:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources cited in this article that talk about this rivalry. UnderMyHead (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Active SPI of this editor at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock status now confirmed. UnderMyHead indefinitely blocked. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was apparently created by banned (not just blocked) editor. Pending the tenth active WP:SOCK investigation of that editor, the article would be elligible for WP:G5 speedy delete. I am not commenting on the article beyond that at this time, due to those extreme reservations. That editor's other creation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami–South Florida football rivalry is trending to unanimous delete. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the infrequency/irregularity of play and lack of historicity, I am disinclined to recognize this sporadic, 11-game series as a notable rivalry or historically-significant series. My disinclination is exacerbated, as noted above by UWDawgs, by the genesis of this article as the recent creation of a sock with a long history of creating rivalry articles on subjects of dubious notability. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Redirect makes sense but little to merge. Tone 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian Union

AfDs for this article:

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

Speculative article that concatenates a few people using the term "South Asian Union". No evidence from sources on any agreement about what it might be,Total WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Created by a sock of a blocked user that is itself now blocked. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pipe dreams are very common. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. An article on this topic was deleted in 2013 after the first AFD; I can't see the previous article or who created it. There is nothing inherently wrong about articles on proposed unions or splits/secessions of countries/provinces/states/counties or what have you. Perennial proposals like to split up the U.S. state of California should be, and are, covered, in good articles that served readers and "remember" stuff that applies again and again (see Partition and secession in California). Other AFDs towards impoverishing our knowledge of history along these lines have seemed misguided to me, and here we have a 2nd AFD on the same topic. I suppose this is similar, and there are sources covering the topic and the specific suggested name "South Asian Union" included in the article, and perhaps more sources are available. There is no mention by deletion nominator or one delete !voter above about performing wp:BEFORE, or searching at all. I don't see how this is "synth" or why it should be dismissed as a "pipedream"; even if it is unlikely that does not mean the proposal should not be covered in Wikipedia. However, there does already exist a Wikipedia article on the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) referenced in the article and some or all of its sources, which would potentially evolve into becoming a more perfect union. It seems that adding mention of the "South Asian Union" term to the "History" section or elsewhere in the SAARC article, with mention of proposals for the SAARC to become more substantial along these lines, would be appropriate there. --Doncram (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. Tone 12:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demihuman Deities

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

Non-notable book. Only sourced to its Amazon page. A before search brings up nothing which comes close to being secondary. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple D&D AfDs are sprouting up every day. WP:ATD should be explored. Perhaps a merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one is just too obscure. I've looked for sources, but I cannot find any reliable independent sources at all. There are also very few unreliable sources, which suggest that it isn't likely there are offline sources out there. As a "companion volume", this article could be merged with Faiths & Avatars, but that article also has a serious lack of reliable sources, so this would just be shifting the problem somewhere else. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches bring up zero reliable secondary sources discussing it. D&D may be notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the hundreds of official publications that have been released over the last forty years are not, themselves, notable unless they have the sources to demonstrate it. Redirecting or Merging information on a completely non-notable game book does nothing but, as Grayfell stated, shift the problem somewhere else. Rorshacma (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks, but preference is to keep and improve. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closer of this AFD should probably note that none of the above "Keep" arguments have attempted to address the issues of notability or complete lack of secondary sources, making them nothing more than WP:JUSTAVOTE. Rorshacma (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per RPG Geek, there is a review of this book in the German RPG magazine Envoyer (Issue 27 - Jan 1999). I haven't been able to track a copy down and I don't speak German. Can anyone else verify? Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can confirm there's about a half-page review in the German publication Envoyer and am working to obtain a copy. I'm fairly sure there should be reviews in the British periodicals too. Most of these books received sufficient coverage, but there's a really awkward period where the magazines just aren't archived online. I'm working to source all these, but I might not be able to get this one ready in an AFD timeframe. If we have to be pedantic and redirect to the list, whatever. Technically correct is the best kind of correct, right? But the sources almost certainly do exist and sooner or later, I'll be able to get copies and properly cite an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we draftify it until you're ready? I'm sympathetic to offline sources and the time it takes to find them, and you can move it back once you've had time to source it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a review of this in the UK edition of Polyhedron, which may or may not meet standards for editorial independence. That periodical was published by an entity (RPGA UK) owned by the sister company (TSR UK) of the company that published the book that this article is about; however, it had a policy of local editorial control (to the extent that it was eventually discontinued for having too much editorial control). YMMV. Naturally, also, I'm still trying to track down a copy. At this point, the UK edition is quite rare and doesn't seem to have made it into any of the archives of the US edition. Because of course not. As for drafting, I really don't need more clutter in my userspace. So if I can't get copies of this stuff in the AFD window, and the existence of documented but currently-unavailable sources isn't sufficient to sway the closing admin, then we should at least redirect this rather than deleting it outright, and I'll pull it out of hock as soon as I have the sources available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the sources Squeamish Ossifrage mentioned are verified and added. Otherwise merge. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally this would constitute a delete consensus - "there are no reliable sources about this" has not been rebutted and is a valid reason for deletion - but the comments by Squeamish Ossifrage allow for the possibility that there are non-English reliable sources out there. Thus relisting to see if someone can access them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have yet to see a situation where a review from a publication was listed erroneously on RPGgeek or RPGnet; if anything, the most common error I have seen on those sites is omitting a published review that they should have listed. I will assume good faith that the review(s) at least exist, but being a non-English paper source it could be hard to track down. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks with no prejudice against recreating the article when the sources mentioned by Squeamish Ossifrage are found. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 17:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Jorwal

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

Promotion Raju Jangid (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is noted Indian entrepreneur. I added reliable sources. If you feel something like promotion then we can remove that things. But The Article should not be deleted. Virenderthind2019 (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must not be deleted If we find an article written in a promotional tone, we should correct it instead of deleting it. According to sources, he is noted. That is what matters. Main thing, now I have improved the article. Now there is nothing like promotion. Virenderthind2019 (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is not notable current time and only references are not enough for notability. --Raju Jangid (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If only references are not enough for notability So please tell me what things are enough for notability?

Virenderthind2019 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Raju Jangid (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion and give warning to creator of COI.Krishna's flute (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete even assuming everything is true, there's no allegation of notability for this run of the mill business person. Lots of people around the world are "noted" in newspapers, some of them actually famous, but without being notable. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A publicity operative whose company has no article, so cannot provide a redirect target. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from doing commissioned work for celebrities (e.g. The Hindu article) and the other sources are the kinds of puff-pieces inherent in the subject's field. I see nothing which establishes encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hines Fischer

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

lacking significant in-depth, independent reliable coverage. Graywalls (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable young figure in the New York hospitality design scene. Author should add more independent coverage sources to establish relevance. ArtAndDesignNerd (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC) — ArtAndDesignNerd (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Syndro0 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Keep I just added four additional magazine articles and a link to better establish relevance. Syndro0 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) — Syndro0 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of ArtAndDesignNerd (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the terribly written promotional style, the award he got from an industry magazine is just not notable. The subject of this page appears to be an ordinary lighting designer, and the page is by all evidence using a NY charity as a free webhost and free advertising. I remind the gentle reader that a former resident of New York known for his design work was just fined $2,000,000 for misusing a charity. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Tone 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mielikki (Forgotten Realms)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not an in-universe fictional biography summary. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bar has been raised since its first AfD nomination way back in 2007. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Insufficient sourcing. TTN (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure plot. Not opposed to redirecting. Kacper IV (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Tone 12:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyr (Forgotten Realms)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character that fails WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. All discussion of importance etc. is limited to in-universe sources ("important in the fictional setting..."). BEFORE fails to show any non-passing analysis of importance in the real world, it's all fictional character biography summaries, inclusions in 'lists of D&D gods', etc.. Could be soft deleted by redirecting to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Tyr. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReTyr this character, per nom. I'm also going to nominate List of Forgotten Realms deities for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Insufficient sourcing. TTN (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. Pure plot. Not opposed to redirection. Kacper IV (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. This isn't going to be anything else. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate elections

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It doesn't violate WP:Crystal because it's a)a notable event almost certain to take place, and b)speculation about it is well documented. Orser67 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that, in what was essentially the same situation in 2015, there was a strong consensus to retain the 2020 United States Senate elections in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020. The same conclusion was also reached in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate elections, 2012 (from 2007) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate elections, 2012 (2nd nomination) (also from 2007). Orser67 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orser67. Perhaps some of the others shouldn't be kept, but this covers the whole thing and there has been a few announcements about some aspects of this. Per the precedent set by other discussions that snowed. J 947^{'s public account} 21:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, you nominated 30 articles at once. These should have been bundled; you are wasting people's time to make then comment on all of them so I won't. The one next election has generally been kept, per Orser's comment. This is the overview article with relevant detail about the next election for these seats. However, I would suggest redirect for the individual state election articles. I have removed unsourced WP:OR from many of them (e.g. [36], and what remains is idle talking-head kitchen-sink speculation that need not be kept either. Reywas92^Talk 21:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For many of the same reasons that I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Oregon gubernatorial election. I didn't realize then that many similar articles had been nominated for deletion, but I would support keeping them on the whole as notable. Some articles can be improved to include reliable sources that shows discussion of the topic, but wholesale deletion of all of the articles, especially considering that they describe the next election in each case, is unwarranted. Yompi20 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There just are not enough (zero) consequences for poorly formed and timewasting AfD nominations, it seems. Anarchangel (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scheduled event. —GoldRingChip 03:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above consensus WikiAviator (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the next election for those particularly Senate seats. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An event that will definitely happen that will either result in the incumbent taking on an opponent or multiple people competing for an open seat. Nothing CRYSTAL seen in here. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. WikiAviator (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in South Carolina

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. WikiAviator (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in North Carolina

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. WikiAviator (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in Connecticut

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be anticipated in WP:NOTCRYSTAL, which states:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.

So it's not a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. —GoldRingChip 21:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in Colorado

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no issue with setting up the page beforehand. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure why this was even nominated for deletion. Perhaps the author made a mistake? JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in California

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022_United_States_Senate_elections#California Until there's actually content that requires the separate article. This applies to all of these that you nominated separately rather than in bulk. Reywas92^Talk 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in Alaska

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as above. I don't see anything that goes against NOTCRYSTAL. ACbreezy (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in Alabama

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Alabama Until there's actually content that requires the separate article. This applies to all of these that you nominated separately rather than in bulk. Reywas92^Talk 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be anticipated in WP:NOTCRYSTAL, which states:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.

So it's not a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. —GoldRingChip 03:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. (per above) WikiAviator (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Wyoming gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Wisconsin gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. This isn't going to end as anything other than a keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Texas gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article meets the requirements stated in WP:FUTURE, the fact that this is the next election and that there is already coverage of declared candidates makes it acceptable.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the election is scheduled to occur and something substantive beyond "it will occur in 2022" can be said about it (i.e., Abbott's indication that he intends to run has been reported in a reliable source), WP:CRYSTAL does not seem to apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Tennessee gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 South Carolina gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Rhode Island gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Oregon gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Oregonian here hoping we'll just let the page snowball. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another Oregonian here. Based on my understanding of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, I would argue that this page does meet that requirement, specifically in point number 1 -- the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Several facts pointed out in the article -- the election date, the history of Gov. Brown's original appointment in 2015, the fact that she is term-limited and cannot seek re-election -- are all verifiable. Our state has a Gubernatorial election every four years (our most recent one being in 2018), so the subject of who will be our next Governor is certainly notable, and potential candidates in that race are supported by a reliable source within the article. I would concede that articles for Gubernatorial elections taking place further in the future (2026, 2030, etc.) would not be notable (at least not yet), but I support keeping this article for the 2022 election. Yompi20 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to support the verifiable items that I outlined in my comment above. I hope this support helps to show the notability of the article subject, even if the article is ultimately deleted. Yompi20 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. WikiAviator (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 New York gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Nevada gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the next election. We typically have articles on the next election that is coming up. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Nebraska gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Massachusetts gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *Keep I have the same rationale for the articles that were nominated, which definitely are not "good" but are the next scheduled elections so should be kept. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Maryland gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Maine gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been much news coverage about LePage considering running again. (I am the creator of the article) 331dot (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If something must happen to the article(which I don't advocate), then it should be redirected to 2022 United States gubernatorial elections, not outright deleted. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets requirements stated in WP:FUTURE, this is the next scheduled election and there is already coverage of potential candidates.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. WikiAviator (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Hawaii gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have the same rationale for the articles that were nominated, which definitely are not "good" but are the next scheduled elections so should be kept. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Florida gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this is an article that talks about coming elections, which are okay in Wikipedia. Predicted candidates are not really crystalball. If consensus is made on the respective article talk page, the "potential" section may be deleted. WikiAviator (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the 2018 Florida gubernatorial election has already been held & we do have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW... (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 California gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep none of these articles (there have been a lot nominated) are good but they do represent the next scheduled election for all of these jurisdictions, and we typically keep those articles. SportingFlyer T·C 09:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have the same rationale for the articles that were nominated, which definitely are bad but are the next scheduled elections so should be kept. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The people of California have a right to know ALL the candidates running for the 2022 election, or even considering running. If this page is removed then this site is censoring the right of people to have all complete information. Keeping this page removes the bias or partisan view of this site. Keep this page to keep the integrity of WP as this page does not violate any WP:NOTCRYSTAL.14:43, November 20, 2019 (UTC)
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Arkansas gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's the practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Arizona gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. If there are sources out there which have begun to talk about the election (possible candidates, outside interests, etc.), then that would be a different discussion. About the only thing I can find are some articles back in 2018 which discuss Ducey making the decision to remain governor until the end of his term, and not run for Senate seat in 2020, but that's not enough to start this article at this time (although when the article is created, it should probably be mentioned). As it stands now, I can't find any sources out there, and this article is completely unsourced.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I understand it, the next election article being created is acceptable, when the previous election has already been held. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this is an article that talks about coming elections, which are okay in Wikipedia. Predicted candidates are not really crystalball. If consensus is made on the respective article talk page, the "potential" section may be deleted. @Jaclar0529 don't propose all articles of 50 states up for deletion at once. Wait for consensus for a couple of articles and see if deleting all is appropriate. This is severely increasing the backlog of AfD and you are apparantly trying to add more articles to your AfD stats. WikiAviator (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the next election. We typically have articles on the next (coming) election. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taewangkorea. If there is an article for the next Texas gubernatorial elections, I believe we should have an article about the Arizona ones. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 00:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Washington, D.C. mayoral election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adheres to WP:FUTURE, as I understand the next election after the previous election is acceptable. WP:FUTURE gives an example of the 2020 US presidential election being acceptable.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United States Senate election in New York

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be anticipated in WP:NOTCRYSTAL, which states:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic.

So it's not a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. —GoldRingChip 21:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scheduled event. --Enos733 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GoldRingChip. It doesn't seem to be unfit to me. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 03:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above consensus.

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Georgia gubernatorial election

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

Does not adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTAL. jaclar0529 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. jaclar0529 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit too far ahead, but could be a good article in the future. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as future elections are acceptable. Don't see any problem. No violation of NOTCRYSTAL. WikiAviator (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's our practice to have next election articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article relates to the next upcoming election, and is therefore notable and certain to take place. I see no violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Yompi20 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey's population

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

Speedy-delete-tagged as a copyvio of http://www.boleat.com/materials/jerseys_population_a_history_mark_boleat_2010.pdf , but page Jersey's population is similar to how it was in February 2011. If the other page copied it off Wikipedia, best revert page Jersey's population to as at 04:19, 19 November 2019‎. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.boleat.com/materials/jerseys_population_a_history_mark_boleat_2010.pdf carries a date of May 2010, there is a wayback snapshot from March 2011, and the original creating editor of the page was User:Boleat, who seems also to be the author of the PDF. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I don't quite see why this is a reason for an AfD nomination. If you think I revdelled a backwards copy, Anthony Appleyard why not just post on the article talk page and ping me, or post on my user talk page. I am confused. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jersey and delete copyrighted text. Could be promising as Demographics of Jersey in the future. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel and MarginalCost: Page Jersey's population at 04:19, 19 November 2019‎ is similar to how it was at 22:11, 25 February 2011, and I suspected that the webpage had copied from Wikipedia: see Template:Backwards copy. User:DESiegel wrote: "and the original creating editor of the page was User:Boleat, who seems also to be the author of the PDF.": if the same man wrote the .PDF webpage and the Wikipedia page, that is a different matter again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, Anthony Appleyard, that the web page had a publication date of May 2010, at least 9 months before the Wikipedia article was created as a userspace draft. The history shows this plainly. I can't prove that the web page is that old, as the first wayback snapshot isn't until 2011. I also can't prove that the author of the web page and the first author of the article are the same person, but the user name is the same as the author name on the web page. In simiaolr situations when it appears that a person has copied his or her own web site, we typically treat it as a copyvio, because we cannot be sure. (and also such copied content is rarely suitable anyway). I still don't understand the AfD nom or what you think should be done here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: My only involvement here has been to add a Delsort tracking note. (Even though, for the record, I know Jersey isn't technically in the UK. It still seemed like the most relevant list.) Did you mean to tag Ambrosiawater? MarginalCost (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The original version of the article was a straight copy-paste and very little remains after removing the copyvio. Any potential content should be added to History of Jersey. –dlthewave ☎ 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dabur. Tone 07:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dabur International

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

Article is poorly sourced, most sources are either from the company itself or from what seems like press releases. I can't really seem to find any coverage on a cursory Google search, so it seems to fail WP:NCORP CodeLyoko^talk 06:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^talk 06:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko^talk 06:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be changed to a redirect to its parrent company Dabur, instead of a full deletion. CodeLyoko^talk 06:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dabur which is definitely a well known company. This seems like a subsidiary or their international division. Regardless, a redirect is perfect here.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Aden (2019)

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Speedy-delete-tagged as "blocked user", but has many edits and has been worked on by several or many users. Likewise with these 4:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose The articles are important recent events, contributed by other users. The creator being blocked does not justify their deletion. Pretty unreasonable request. KasimMejia (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all.. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. No hits whatsoever for the so-called 2019 "Battle of Aden", which the article itself calls merely a "series of clashes" over three weeks. The "Shaybah attack" was an unmanned drone attack that caused no casualties nor any disruption to its target. And so on and so on. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anthony Appleyard - was it your intent to nominate all 5? If so, the four not in the original nom have not had AfD tags added to them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now tagged them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Anthony Appleyard, wasn't sure if that was your intention.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only substantive edits made by others are by IP's, which very well might be socks of the original puppet. Similarly, 2019 Aden Missile Strike, 2019 East–West Pipeline attack and 2019 Shaybah attack did not have substantive edits from other editors, which is the standard which would allow the articles to have been speedied. The only article with significant contributions from a known non-sock is 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq. So if the other 4 are also up for deletion, I would definitely delete 3 of them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm open to the arguments around WP:NOTNEWS, but the objections above based on the creating editors being blocked or IP-editors is pure WP:GRAVEDANCING and WP:ADHOMINEM and not a WP:DELREASON. Similarly there is no need to speedy delete articles because they were created by a blocked user and the admin who declined the speedy was correct to do so. WP:G5 only applies to articles known or reasonably believed to have been created by a user after that user has been blocked - articles created before that cannot be speedied under G5, and there is no evidence of that here. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Network of International Business Schools

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

This organization seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Hasn't improved since the prod 5 years ago. BEFORE shows few mentions in passing but no in-depth coverage, at best, a single sentence here and there that it exists and is involved in the field of international education. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion. The front page suggests that there are 70 affiliating universities sending delegates to a conference in Budapest. Neither my Hungarian or Business Mandarin is good enough to Google to find the two RS to support a keep- but I would look in Business Week or one of the Higher Education mags for adverts and editorial about previous content. My instinct is Keep. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NORG/GNG. We aren't a yellow page service, seriously people... Kacper IV (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdraw requested by @Piotrus:. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 03:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Lindahl

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

As written, fails WP:NBIO and I don't see any sources in English that would help. Swedish wiki bio is longer but similarly not referenced at all. Can anyone find Swedish sources to improve this? (This was prodded ~5 years ago but nobody improved this since). Time to find sources or delete it, I think _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG, well known Swedish journalist, hosted Melodifestivalen - career summed up perfect, I think you are starting to belittle articles. Mrluke485 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2019 (GMT)

"well known Swedish journalist" - source please. "hosted Melodifestivalen" - so what? "career summed up perfect" - ditto. And please avoid WP:NPA.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain to me why you think hosting Melodifestivalen is irrelevant when its one of the most successful TV show in Sweden, I will refrain from personal attacks but since you are proposing my articles for deletion I intend to stand by them 100%, you may not like it but just I respect your right to consider them for deletion, I reserve the right to defend these articles. Also here is a member of a personal body. Mrluke485 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (GMT)

I am not denying you your right to defend them. I just wish that those articles would meet our policies more. Such as WP:V for proper referencing, or WP:NBIO for making it more clear why some of the activities described there go beyond 'just having a normal career' and make someone encyclopedic. Which, again, can be fixed if you were to add more sources to them, ones that would show that independent sources have written about those people. That you think they are important is about as irrelevant as whether I think they are or aren't. We need WP:RS coverage which shows or preferably states outright they are important. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Not really an edge case, though the article was definitely lacking sources when taken to AfD. Even though his most active years in the public eye were in the 60s and 70s and there would be a huge amount of information about him that isn't easily accessible from home, finding a couple of reliable sources was fairly easy. "Our first major news anchor in television" and "one of the biggest television stars of his time", says Minnenas journal (a Swedish magazine). Hemmets Journal has a long article from 2006, no longer online but available through Mediaarkivet, where they call him Sweden's "very first television idol". I've expanded the article somewhat and added better sources than it had. More would be found in printed material, but this alone should be enough to show notability and verifiability, I think. /Julle (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(The less accessible Hemmets Journal article is 2600 words long, focused on Lindahl's life and career. /Julle (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

(Also: easy for someone speaking Swedish, of course. Not meant as criticism. /Julle (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Withdraw. Thank you User:Julle for finding those sources, my concerns are now addressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Closet. In light of the concerns expressed here about the sourcing, this leaves the possibility that a redirect be implemented instead if the sourcing turns out to be inadequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spear closet

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

Appears to be a twelve-year-old hoax, or at least a very rarely used name without notability. I cannot find anything besides mirrors in Google search or Books, with the sole mention being a novel that post-dates the article. The article's supposed source Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic and Tactical Planning of Corporate Facilities ([37]) was apparently never published. Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into closet which covers a variety of such tight spaces, such as a broom cupboard. Andrew D. (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, where's the source that suggests this is a real name? We shouldn't be putting made-up "slang" shit in that article. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The person who created this says that they are an architect and their editing activity over many years seems consistent with this. There's not much on Google but I see enough to make me think that this is not a hoax, e.g. an inspector uses the phrase here. Andrew D. (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:DICDEF - it exists but a real stub will not be created at this rate. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge There's a feeble speckling of occasional uses on the net (once all the WP mirrors are sorted out) which at least shows the term exists. Whether the given source is of any use I don't know. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Grafström

AfDs for this article:

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

As written, fails WP:NBIO and I don't see any sources in English that would help. Swedish wiki bio is longer but similarly not referenced at all. Can anyone find Swedish sources to improve this? (This was prodded ~5 years ago but nobody improved this since; AfD from that time had arguments based on WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:GOOGLEHITS). Time to find sources or delete it, I think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have improved the article with several sources. Other than that still Keep per WP:GNG. High profile work in Swedish radio and television i.e. Melodifestivalen, Karlavagnen etc.BabbaQ (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG, well known Swedish TV personality and well sourced. Mrluke485 (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2019 (GMT)

Withdraw. Took two AfDs and several years, but thanks to BabbaQ this is not properly referenced. AGF that the sources in Swedish are in-depth and not just passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fedak

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

this article lacks any citations from reliable sources and after a decent amount of research I have been able to find any sources to address that gap. Aprude51 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aprude51 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we most commonly delete producer's articles, because they are so run of the mill, and in this case even his ImDB entry is one sentence. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable person lacking SIGCOV in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Robinson

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Full disclosure, I am the original page creator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question clearly at one time you believed this worthy as an article and have changed your position. Can you elaborate? I admit that as the article stands now it seems to be lacking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created this and several other articles for undrafted rookies signed by the Eagles in my first few months as an editor in 2009. Fortunately, the other seven or so players eventually played in NFL, CFL, or AFL games, and thus pass WP:NGRIDIRON now. I was unaware of the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia at the time, and just assumed because the Eagles signed these players that they were automatically notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes sense. I'm going with delete as well. Not seeing anything to show a pass of WP:GNG and the background on the article creation really helps.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Need to appear in a regular season game to pass WP:NGRIDIRON. And college career (at UMass) doesn't appear to have been extraordinary so as to pass WP:NCOLLATH. Finally, deferring to the judgment of the original article creator on the GNG criterion. Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The nominator was the article's creator so I don't have nothing to add to this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Keyes

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

Article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. ilamb94 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ilamb94 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick search did turn up some significant coverage from his two years as a UCLA starter and later as a coach, e.g., (1) "Miss and Hit for Keyes", Los Angeles Times, 9/18/05, (2) "Keyes Plays Way Back to First Unit", Los Angeles Times, 8/16/06, (3) "Former Birmingham, UCLA standout Keyes a daydream believer", Los Angeles Daily News, 1/31/09, (4) "Drawing from within: Campbell Hall football coach Dennis Keyes ...", Los Angeles Times, 8/15/17, pt 1 and pt 2, and (5) "L.A. football coach starts youth 7v7 league to combat lost skills from drop in tackle football", USA Today High School Sports, 2/16/18. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having had time now to review the coverage, I am persuaded that it is significant coverage sufficient to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After a Google search turned up significant coverage, including post-pro ball articles, I added to the existing Wiki article. Feature newspaper stories of the subject include those written by USA Today and the Los Angeles Times about the subject's life after his football career. Subject easily passes WP:GNG, plus his football career includes awards and notable records, thus the subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like new research has uncovered enough to pass WP:GNG. Good research team!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the coverage satisfies WP:GNG - the LA Times articles from when he was a player are local blurbs from the team's beat writer and I would classify them as WP:ROUTINE, and while there's a feature article from the hometown paper it's about how he made the practice squad, the reserve team, for a NFL team. He fails WP:NCOLLATH (specifically #3) and WP:NGRIDIRON. The human interest story on his art is interesting but it's by the youth sports writer, and the quote about his 7v7 league isn't bad, but it's not really WP:SIGCOV of him. I'm not specifically !voting because I have a different view of what constitutes routine coverage than the users on the college football project (i.e., he was not a notable college football player and only received press in a football setting because someone was assigned to cover his team locally, and his post-football work would not have qualified him an article had he not played college football) and I've found some !voters who continually vote against WP:GNG consensus disruptive when sources exist, but I want to note my concern. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Philadelphia#Arts. Tone 07:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Artists Equity

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

NCORP fail. All I can find is trivial coverage. (That said, an article on the national form of Artists' Equity would make sense.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale provided by @ThatMontrealIP: , It is a non notable organization & fails per WP:NCORP Celestina007 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philadelphia#Arts per WP:WOOD. I'd say it isn't notable, but it is decently worth mentioning in that section. I found one additional source we could use to do so.^[38] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Cass

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

Cass was a low level person in the American Revolution. He was involved in the state level organization of a veterans group. He received passing mention in some local histories. None of this comes close to rising to the level of notability. The fact that he had a son who served in the US cabinet and was a major party nominee for president does not make Cass notable, and nothing else does either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A mid-level officer in the Revolutionary War, he apparently didn't sufficiently distinguish himself, so he doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER, and I can't find any significant coverage either. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SOLDIER. A condensed version of the first two paragraphs could be merged into Lewis Cass#Early_life. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not one of the last surviving American Revolutionary War vets (by 3 decades!). I'd go along with merging as suggested by GPL93. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Bears statistics

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

This is a collection of trivial statistics, a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolute failure of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: Is your concern at all based on partial duplication with List of Chicago Bears team records? Or do you view both as problematic? See also Category:American football team records and statistics. Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I think the team records article has a better case for being kept, as it's at least specific about its scope. "Statistics" is too vague for an article, and I'd support grouping the other "(NFL team) statistics" pages in that category here as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I question whether NOTSTATSBOOK is the proper grounding. But I do believe this list is of dubious notability under WP:LISTN as we have no evidence that the subject "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as suggested by LISTN. I also have problem with the lack of cohesiveness of the topic, and also a concern that it represents WP:OR. Team records, on the other hand, appear to me to be a cohesive and legitimate list topic. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:NOTSTATS. Mostly trivial stats or records without clear verification. Ajf773 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is wrong to single out this article. Minnesota Vikings statistics, Los Angeles Rams statistics and maybe List of Carolina Panthers records and statistics deserve to be discussed along with this article. Despite the page name of Pittsburgh Steelers statistics, that content is more like a records article. I think these pages should be discussed jointly. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the other articles either (A) probably could also go through AFD or (B) are better sourced. I have no objection either way to including them in this AFD or creating new ones other than the delay that may come up. But we can handle a delay, there is no deadline. What say everyone else?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that all should be lumped together. For example, Pittsburgh Steelers statistics is really a "records" list and a well-sourced one. The instant article is quite different, and there is already a Bears' team records list at List of Chicago Bears team records. Cbl62 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hellal Hosseini

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources that satisfy the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decksplash

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

Cancelled game, sourcing is thin at best Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate a bit? Even without source hunting, there’s 7 sources in the article and at least 6 of them are considered reliable per WP:VG/S. Being cancelled isn’t in itself a reason to delete if the sourcing exists, it’s only an argument for saying that it unlikely that more sourcing is coming, which isnt necessary here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source I am satisfied with it passing WP:SIGCOV is [39]. The rest is all not in-depth coverage of WP:ROUTINE news: announcements or cancellation notice. However, Bossa Studios article exists. So at worst, we should merge this there in Bossa Studios#Cancelled. Some parts of the history could also be added to Bossa Studios#History. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the dedicated sourcing below, reliable per consensus at WP:VG/S, is enough to meet the WP:GNG.

Additionally, while I’m unfamiliar with the website, I also noticed that The Christian Post covered it as well, so it received coverage outside of game and technology websites as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing that the coverage is there, but is there enough for a standalone or perhaps this should be merged to Bossa's page? --Masem (t) 20:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think so. I’d be all for a merge if it was just of those two sentence one source articles that does nothing but define the subject, but there’s a few paragraphs of content present already, and there’s still more that could be pulled from the sources above as well. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources were super easy to find. Click Google news search at the top and some good ones appear right away. Sergecross73 already mentioned some so no need for me to. Dream Focus 02:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A minor topic for sure, but sourcing is sufficient to merit an article. Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that satisfied with the coverage, since lots of these are based on the announcements by the dev studio (100k people requirement, release) or WP:ROUTINE. However, WP:ATD that I mentioned above was not considered by the nominator, so a deletion is not the answer here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing looks fine. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Divine Mercy

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

I do not believe this organization meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. It is a group based entirely out of the unincorporated community of Pine Bluff, per the article's text, which is itself a part of the town of Cross Plains. Cross Plains (town), Wisconsin has a population 1,419. I'm skeptical that a small-town fraternal organization can be considered notable without scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia's notability policies (WP:N, WP:ORG) -- and there, it falls short. The Knights of Divine Mercy has done nothing of note to warrant attention from independent, reputable sources; the article currently cites sources run by the organization and its founder, Richard Heilman, plus a smattering of others that honestly feel a bit more like promotional content. Consider, also, that there is currently only one (1) link to the page from another Wikipedia article. I would appreciate if someone could help out by finding something, anything notable that this group has done, because otherwise it doesn't seem fit for this encyclopedia. RexSueciae (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. RexSueciae (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. RexSueciae (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. If this blows up into an association of the faithful, we can bring this back. Until then, it seems to remain a local phenomenon – although it's got good press so far for something so local. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons stated above and also since the org does not meet notability standards. This is a small group with a small following, and is no different than a bible study group. Sure they may have two to three articles that reference them but they, in my opinion, do not have a sustained record of coverage to justify their own article.SVUKnight (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/djelatnik/mario.grcevic

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax_(band)#Career

[4] ttps://chartmetric.io/

[5] "2019 Dragon Con Independent Film Festival Winners". dragoncon.org. Retrieved 2019-10-28.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]