Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 September	19 September >

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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederica von Stade – Mahler Songs

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - there are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to paraphrase but used direct quotations because paraphrasing critical comments often misrepresents or distorts the original. It is not clear to me that these quotations constitute WP:COPYVIO. I don't have access to the Gramophone review any longer, so I can't make a quantitative comparison, but the NY Times quote is only two sentences from two paragraphs (with six sentences) comparing Frederika von Stade's recording to one by Marilyn Horne from a very lengthy article that discusses many recordings. In other words, the quotation is highly selective and cannot be construed as a copyright violation of the source. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations of two or more sentences are not uncommon on the Wikipedia. For example, see here. The bulk of the linked section consists of direct quotations. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article cites two critical reviews from two important publications: The New York Times and Gramophone. This satisfies criteria one which specifically states multiple critical reviews in publications, including newspapers, is enough to confer notability. As for too much quotations, the quotations can be removed or trimmed to avoid copyright concerns. Deletion is not the answer.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed by abridging the quoted reviews to uncontroversial length - it will no doubt be possible to supply further brief quotes in due course. The album was nominated for a Grammy for the best classical vocal performance of its year. For further coverage of the album, see Opera, July 2011, p. 870; Fanfare, Vol. 7, Issue 4, 1984, p. 203; American Record Guide, Vol. 44, Issues 1-6, 1980, p. 34; The Penguin guide to compact discs yearbook, 1985, p. 216; The Penguin guide to the 1000 best classical recordings, 2011; and New York Magazine, 23 Nov 1981, p. 80.Niggle1892 (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 4meter4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the assertion that the originial direct quotes are WP:COPYVIO is simply incorrect. Here is an example of The Washington Post quoting three paragraphs from an article in The New York Times:[1] (scroll down to the middle of the page). --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the Free Home of the Brave (album)

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

Violation of WP:NALBUM. No adequate sourcing or evidence found for this album. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Something strange is going on here. How could an album featuring a monumental team-up of two god-like superstars be so obscure? It received no professional reviews, it is not listed at either Bob's or Johnny's official sites, and the best I could find is an empty listing for the CD at Amazon ([2]) but with no copies available. This might be a legendary "lost" album that started as a gleam in a superfan's eye and got out of hand on the interwebs. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it appears to me that this item never existed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's very possible that this material does exist, but was never officially released. There's a whole ton of material like this that's housed at the Bob Dylan Archive in Tulsa, OK at the Gilcrease Museum Helmerich Research Center. The Bob Dylan Center is opening up there in 2020. Regardless, I too could find nothing currently published in an extensive search. Everything mentioning it mirrors back to wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maren McGuire

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

The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines per WP:NACTOR. McGuire has appeared in one episode of Community and low budget/b-movies such as "Stripperland" and I Am Virgin. Despite this, she has not earned any "cult following" or made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Not every z-list actor or actress deserves a Wikipedia page, and this one certainly doesn't. KidAd (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NACTOR, having had only minor roles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS.4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Kid

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members where all versions of the character are already included. The current article is nothing but plot information, and I have been unable to find any reliable sources demonstrating any real world notability of the character. Rorshacma (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Haven't been able to find any good sources so far, but it does look like this might not be the primary topic. Google is showing More hits for the Metallica song and a late 80's film than the comic character, so any redirect might be better targeted, and Invisible Kid (Lyle Norg) be the main page or redirect for the character--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crowder (ice hockey)

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

Subject currently fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has played 112 games in the AHL but at least 200 is needed for a skater to pass #2. Also has no preeminent honours to pass #3 and #4, AIHL All-Star game and WCHA All-Academic Team does not qualify. The article does have eight references although most of them have been deleted. Should he pass WP:GNG however, feel free to close the discussion. Tay87 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player. Will we ever remove the glut of non-notable articles created by Dolovis?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not played at any level that guarantees him an automatic notability pass, he is not properly verified as clearing the notability standards he needs to pass for the levels he has played at, and this is referenced almost entirely to his roster entries and press releases on the self-published websites of his own teams and thus is not demonstrating that he even passes WP:GNG on the sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY per nomination, and I don't see how he meets GNG...........PK T(alk) 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Cole

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played 162 games in the AHL and at least 200 is required to pass #2. Also has no preeminent honours to #3 as well. Tay87 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:TVSHOW. The subject is about a nationally broadcast concert on a major network, PBS's Great Performances. Five seconds of searching took me to this review in The New York Times. The nominator has not done any research, but has summarily nominated multiple articles out of a personal vendetta against the article's creator and is not acting in good faith in my opinion..4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The album fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings; the existence of reviews does not change that. Please WP:AGF; I do not even know the article creator and have no opinion on them. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding of notability guidelines is along the lines of this comment from Dodger67 in a recent discussion: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. A topic that fails a Wikiproject's subject-specific notability guidelines but passes WP:GNG should not be deleted. Colin M (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here other than basically catalogue entries. No evidence this is a notable recording. Guy (help!) 23:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not it passes WikiProject Classical music's notability guidelines, it would appear to pass WP:GNG (per the non-trivial NYTimes coverage found by 4meter4 above, plus the Gramophone coverage cited in the article), and that's enough. Colin M (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I didn't notice at first, but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings is actually a Wikiproject advice essay, not a policy or guideline, so that makes it an even weaker basis for deletion.
Delete subject specific guidelines often exist because coverage of some subjects is so exhaustive but in fleeting ways that we would create more articles than would ever be needed or sustainable just on GNG. This is clearly what we face with politician articles, where GNG would justify almost every unelected candidate getting an article, but we don't want that. Mainly because it would make Wikipedia more presentist and Amero-centric, two things it already is way too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. Part of the article is a long paraphrase of a critic's review - - certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the coverage mentioned above not satisfy WP:NALBUM#1? Unlike the WikiProject essay cited by nominator, WP:NALBUM does not exclude reviews as a form of RS coverage. As for the copyvio issue, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the majority of the article was plagiarized, then yeah, maybe it would be better to blow it up. But that doesn't seem to be the case here - as far as I can tell, it's just a problem of injudiciously long quotations in the "Critical reception" section. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Colin M (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't really only an album. It's a live PBS television broadcast that was recorded and then secondarily released on DVD and CD. The relevant policy is WP:TVSHOW which only requires that it aired on a major network. PBS is a major network.4meter4 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources. Opera News included the work in it's 2016 review of the work's re-release as a part of a collection of Frederica von Stadt's material. This shows longevity which further lends to notability. See [3]. The work has also been broadcast on WQXR and it charted at number 10 on the top classical music sales (see here) in the December 1996 publication of Billboard.4meter4 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per reviews in Gramophone, NYT and Opera News. The article meets GNG. So the Classical Music page cited (not even an SNG, but an essay) is not compelling evidence. As for the "fails NALBUM" argument, saying that an article fails some SNGs tells us nothing—rather, it needs to fail all SNGs and GNG to be non-notable—and I hope I'm misunderstanding the nominator when they dismiss "the existence of reviews" as if secondary sources are irrelevant. (The !vote is "weak" as I can't actually view two of the sources, but I'm taking it on good faith that the reviews are substantial. Summoned here from a neutral WPTV notice.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4's arguments: show aired by major stations, reviewed in good papers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passses WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews despite the opinions of a deeply flawed essay imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4's research findings and reasoning. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief excerpts from Steane's review will replace what has been deleted in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Becker

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

Fails WP:NTRIATHLON. No SIGCOV outside of his own area, Rogermx (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of citations demonstrating notability. The only link in the article is to the subject's own website.-Markeer 12:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search revealed no sources. Article fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The lone delete argument (nom) refers to an essay, not to established policy or guideline. Appears to meet GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Schöpfung & Harmoniemesse (Leonard Bernstein recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The work was reviewed in Gramaphone, was rereleased as part of set which was reviewed in The New Yorker, and the article cites other offline references. This satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. Any copy vio material should be removed, but notability is established and the article should not be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be added in due course. The album is notable as Frederica von Stade's debut on disc. For further coverage of the album and the two recordings from which it was compiled, see High Fidelity/Musical America, Vol. 18, Issue 2, 1968, p. 82; Saturday Review, Vol. 53, 1970, p. 156; Paul R. Laird and Huan Lin's Historical dictionary of Leonard Bernstein, 2019, p. 124; Records in Review, Vol. 21, 1976, p. 160; The Penguin guide to bargain compact discs, 1999, p. 490; The Penguin guide to compact discs and cassettes, 1994, p. 526; Fanfare, Vol. 16, Issue 4, 1993, p. 182; Music and Musicians, Vol. 24, 1975, p. 5; and High Fidelity/Musical America, Vol. 25, Issues 7-12, 1975, p. 96. Niggle1892 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La fedeltà premiata (Antal Doráti recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 1 at WP:NALBUM. In searching I found published reviews in New York magazine, and discussion of this work as part of an important recording legacy of Haydn works in The New York Times. The work was also critically reviewed or used as a comparison against other recordings in other critical commentary in several other NYT articles over several years, including: [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Offline I located a review in Opera, volume 27, page 1029, 1976. The work also has an entry in the reference work The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, Ivan March, Edward Greenfield, Robert Layton, Penguin, 2001, page 622. If other publish reference works contain articles on this album, wikipedia should too.4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. Part of the pioneering Dorati Haydn cycle, this album is of fundamental importance to the history of Haydn on record. See Opera, November 1976, p. 1029 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oh my goodness! isn't it great that wikipedia has diligent editors such as 4meter4 who has shown in their above comments that this meets WP:NALBUM and is deserving of an article. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le nozze di Figaro (Herbert von Karajan recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria one at WP:NALBUM. A search revealed these sources: Gramaphone, American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies, McFarland Press, page 368, 2004, The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, Paul Gruber, page 293, W. W. Norton & Company, 1993. With it's entries in other notable published reference works this is a slam dunk keep.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issues have now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. For further coverage of the album, see Opera, Oct 1979, p. 974.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, suggest that just about any album involving Herbert von Karajan is likely to be notable (i am reminded of point no. 5 of WP:NBOOK), anyway, with the number of reviews in the article, and sources listed in this afd it definitely meets WP:NALBUM so is a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Il mondo della luna (Antal Doráti recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. In addition to the Gramaphone review cited in the article, I found this review in The New York Times, and this scholarly article by musicologist Michael Brago on the album published in the journal Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Spring, 1984), pp. 308-332. There's certainly a lot of material from that article that would be encyclopedic, and it demonstrates that the recording was an important one.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. The album was the first major recording of the opera and is of fundamental importance in its discography. See The Musical Times, March 1979, pp. 227-228; Opera, May 2009, p. 528; David Wyn Jones's Haydn, 2017, p. 215; Paul Fryer's Opera in the Media Age, 2014, p. 191; Elvio Giudici's L'opera in CD e video, 2007, p. 520; Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 23, Issues 7-12, 1978, p. 135; The New Republic, Vol. 179, 1978, p. 23; Peter Gammond's The illustrated encyclopaedia of recorded opera, 1979, p. 91; High Fidelity/Musical America, Vol. 28, Issue 2, 1978, p. 104; Ulrich Schreiber's Schallplatten Klassik, Auslese, 1979, p. 119; The New Records, Vol. 46-47, 1978, p. 117; Classic CD, Issues 38-43, 1993, p. 70; Records in Review, Vol. 24, 1979, p. 168; The Listener, Vol. 99, 1978, p. 846; Nuova rivista musicale Italiana, Vol. 19, Issues 3-4, p. 535; Études, Vol. 349, 1978, p. 715; Rodolfo Celletti's Il teatro d'opera in disco 1950-1987, 1988, p. 331; American Record Guide, Vol. 41, Issues 7-12, p. 48; and Gramophone Classical Good CD Guide 1998, 1997, p. 422.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another notable album that meets WP:NALBUM, attested to by the reviews in the article, and sources listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La clemenza di Tito (Colin Davis recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The New York Times said it was the best recording of this work ever made. It was also reviewed in Gramophone, Fanfare, CD Review Digest, and has an entry on page 330 in the reference work The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, Paul Gruber, W. W. Norton & Company, New York City 1993.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See Opera, March 1978, p. 286 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. It has multiple reviews/articles. Excerpts have been broadcast on NPR stations. e.g. [8]] and on Sveriges Radio [9] to name a few. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Così fan tutte (Alain Lombard recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 1 at WP:NALBUM. A search revealed this review: Gramophone. The work also has an entry in this published reference work: The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera, W. W. Norton Co, 1993, New York City, page 324. If other published reference works cover this work, Wikipedia should too.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See Opera, July 1978, p. 702; High Fidelity/Musical America, Vol. 28, Issues 7-12, 1978, p. 106; Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 23, Issues 1-6, 1978, p. 135; Musical Heritage Reviews, Vol. 10, Issues 4-10, 1986, p. 13; The New Records, Vol. 46, Issue 1, 1978, p. 10; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, 1999, p. 982; The Penguin Guide to Opera on Compact Discs, 1993, p. 229; Alan Blyth's Opera on Record, 1994; Attila Csampai and Dietmar Holland's Così fan tutte, 1984, p. 303; The Music Journal, Vol. 36-37, 1978, p. 28; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, 2001, p. 912.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rossini Bicentennial Birthday Gala

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The work has a entry in the reference work American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies, Clyde T. McCants, McFarlin Publishing, 2004, page 112, had an extensive review in New York (magazine) by music critic Peter G. Davis (see here), is part of the collection of France’s national library [10], and per the cited reviews in Gramaphone in the article itself.4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's copyright issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. See Opera Now, March 1993, p. 37 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dardanus (Raymond Leppard recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria one of WP:NALBUM. The article was reviewed in Music Magazine, Volumes 6-7, page 35, 1983; Opera, Volume 53, page 371; Stereo Review, Volume 47, page 104, 1982; Gramophone, Volume 72, page 113, 1995; BBC Music Magazine, Volume 15, Issues 7-13, page 68, 2007. The work also has its own entry on page 898 of the reference work The Penguin guide to compact discs and cassettes, Ivan March, Edward Greenfield, Robert Layton, Penguin Books, 1994. In addition to these offline sources, the article was reviewed here in The New York Times.4meter4 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (starting to feel like a scratched record repeating the same thing:)), meets WP:NALBUM with multiple reviews.Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has taken a tremendous amount of my time this week User:Coolabahapple. User:Softlavender was a bit hasty in taking these articles to AFD. It's largely the result of a badly misguided essay that was endorsed by a small handful of editors at WP:WikiProject Classical Music. The benefit of doing this work though, is it illuminates how bad that essay really is and will hopefully lead to it's alteration to align with WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will appear in due course. Incidentally, Leppard's account of his experience with this opera in Paris - which you can read on amazon - is a bit of a comedy classic.Niggle1892 (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otello (López Cobos recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. It has multiple reviews. In addition to several in Gramophone over the years and Stereo Review (all already cited in the article), there's one in the New York Times [11] and a one paragraph entry in the The Penguin Guide to Recorded Classical Music (rated "Outstanding" and the only entry for that opera). It was broadcast in its entirety on WXQR [12], and excerpts on other NPR stations. e.g. [13] and on the BBC [14] and Radio France [15] to name a few. It is also the first full-length recording of an important work. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. As for potential copyvio issues in the "Reviews" section, that can be truncated to simply listing the reviews and re-expanded later. The entire article doesn't need deletion, if the subject is notable. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, frankly, i am surprised that such an experienced editor (hi Softlavender:)) would nominate so many articles without any apparent WP:BEFORE, anyway, another album that easily meets WP:NALBUM with numerous reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. As the first major recording of the opera, the album is of fundamental importance to the history of the work. See Opera, December 1979, p. 1167; Opera Now, November/December 1998, p. 43; The Musical Times, May 1980, p. 323; Clyde T. McCants's American Opera Singers and their Recordings, 2004, p. 365; Music and Musicians, Vol. 28, 1979, p. 32; Classic CD, Issues 32-43,1993, p. 10; Ovation, Vol. 1, 1980, p. 37; Matthew Boyden and Nick Kimberley's The Rough Guide to Opera, 2002, p. 177; The Penguin Guide to Opera on Compact Disc, 1993, p. 369; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs and DVDs Yearbook, 2004, p. 315; The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, 2001, p. 1092; Die Bühne, Issues 244-255, 1979, p. 256; Records in Review, 1981, p. 261; George Birnbaum's Classical CD Scout, 1996, p. 277; BBC Music Magazine, Vol. 3, Issues 1-6, 1994, p. 136; The Opera Companion, 1983, p. 14; Charles Osborne's The Bel Canto Operas of Rossini, Donizetti and Bellini, 1994, p. 357; The New Yorker, Vol, 55, Part 8, 1979, p. 81; Stereophile, Vol. 24, Issues 7-12, p. 145.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hänsel und Gretel (John Pritchard recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. This album as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works by reputable authors in reliable sources (#1 at WP:NALBUM). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. It has multiple reviews already cited in the article plus this one in the Christian Science Monitor. It's also listed in A Basic Classical and Operatic Recordings Collection for Libraries. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with reviews listed in the article and those above (thanks to Voceditenore).Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See Opera, October 1979, p. 975 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pelléas et Mélisande (Herbert von Karajan recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See also The Musical Times, May 1981, p. 317; Opera, December 1988, p. 1463; The Penguin Guide to Opera on Compact Disc, 1993, p.66; Best Rated CDs: Classical, 1992, p. 414; Opera Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1988, p. 36; BBC Music Magazine Top 1000 CDs Guide, 1996, p. 323; Matthew Boyden and Nick Kimberly's The Rough Guide to Opera, 2002, p. 282; and Alan Blyth's Opera on Record 3 (1984) and Opera on CD (1994).Niggle1892 (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM criteria 1. Listed by Gramophone (magazine) as one of the top ten Debussy recordings] and reviewed by the magazine here, the recording is discussed in detail in his biography (available here on google books). The work was also reviewed by critic Paul Moor in Musical America, 1988, pg 74-75; and the American Record Guide, Volume 43, page 21-22, 1979. The work also has an entry in the reference work The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera (which can be viewed here), page 93, Paul Gruber, W. W. Norton & Company, New York City, 1993. If other reference works have entries on this article, wikipedia should too. The work has also been reviewed/discussed here, here, in The New York Times. 4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with the article listing reviews by Gramophone (multiple reviews), and Sound & Vision, and those listed above by 4meter4 this is a keep, as easily meeting WP:NALBUM.Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Horne: Divas in Song

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article (apart for the pointless track by track listing) consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you that the value of a track listing in an article about a recording of an opera or a symphony is debatable, but I think that in the case of a disc like this one, a track listing is almost essential. Surely we can't have articles about recordings of music without telling readers what the music is?Niggle1892 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM criteria 1. The work was reviewed by Bernard Holland in The New York Times (see here), in Gramophone (magazine) (see here), and in the San Francisco Chronicle (see here).4meter4 (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM ie. no. 1 (multiple independent reviews) with 3 reviews as listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The deletion rationale is that it fails a project criteria. The keep rationale is that it passes a SNG. While passing an SNG is not necessarily enough evidence of notability should it be challenge directly, given that there was no argument against notability on the basis of the SNG, the keep consensus holds. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werther (Colin Davis recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. note that it also fails WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article, apart from track by track listing and personnel copied from the recording details, consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Bednarek. Remove any copyvio material. If it leaves a stub it leaves a stub. Copyvio is not a valid reason to delete a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. For further discussion, see Opera, Oct 1981, p. 1040.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The allegedly COPYVIO material that I excised has now been restored by another editor on the grounds that removing it was destructive editing and possible vandalism. Wikipedia - you gotta love it.Niggle1892 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Der Rosenkavalier (Edo de Waart recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article has listed reviews from 2 different magazines (so technically meets no. 1 of WP:NALBUM) - Gramophone and Sound & Vision, and although, as i've stated in other similar afds that past consensus amongst classical album wikieditors appears to require more, i'm leaning towards retention of this article as the multiple Gramophone reviews listed by different reviewers over decades points towards the album's significance. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. For further coverage, see Opera, October 1977, p. 967; High Fidelity/Musical America, Vo. 27, Issue 2, 1977, p. 277; and Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Vol. 22, Issues 7-12, 1977, p. 103.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The work was reviewed in The New York Times (see here) and on more than one occasion in Gramophone (see here and here). Additionally the work is included in the reference work American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies Clyde T. McCants, McFarland Publishing, 2004, page 368, and was reviewed in the International Music Guide, Derek Elley, Tantivy Press, page 222, 1978.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo 4meter4! with the additional above reviews i have now leant too far and fallen into a definite keep:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Horne & Frederica von Stade: Lieder & Duets

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The recording was reviewed in Gramophone (see here). I also located a review offline in Fanfare, volume 17, issue 4, page 314. A side note to those searching for references, the album is usually referred to by the name Dvořák, Schumann, Mendelssohn.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arias and Barcarolles

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the world premiere recording of the orchestrated version of Arias and Barcarolles.Niggle1892 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although technically meeting no. 1 of WP:NALBUM - "subject of multiple [ie. 2 or more], non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." as article lists reviews by Gramophone and Sound & Vision, past consensus amongst classical album wikieditors appears to require more. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. The album is notable as the premiere recording of a new version of a work by a composer of international standing.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. The work has several published critical reviews, including The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, Penguin Books, 1999, page 2016; Out (magazine), Volume 5, Issues 1-5, 1996, page 75; American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies, Clyde T. McCants, McFarland Press, 2004, page 93, 366; and Gramophone (see here).4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, another notable album that now with the above reviews brought out here easily meets WP:NALBUM to be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Three-Cornered Hat (André Previn recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has been broadcast on NPR, reviewed in Gramaphone (title is given in the Original Spanish; but it's the same recording). Meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excepts will be supplied in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Midsummer Night's Dream (Seiji Ozawa recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. note that it also fails WP:NALBUM and WP:COPYVIO. The main bulk of the article consists of long paraphrases of critics reviews - these are certainly violations of copyright.Smerus (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM because it has been reviewed in multiple publications independent of the subject. A quick search revealed these sources: gramaphone and The New York Times. Notability is clearly evident based on these sources. Any copyvio material should be removed, but the article should not be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with 3 reviews, 2 listed in the article, and 1 from the NYT listed above (thanks to 4meter4:)).ps. material that has caused copyvio concerns has been removed from the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. Remember that Judi Dench used to be the head of MI6, and they're not people you want to get on the wrong side of.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Midsummer Night's Dream (Eugene Ormandy recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed, and, brief review excerpts will rematerialize in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. A critical review in Classical Music: The Rough Guide, Duncan Clark, ‎Joe Staines, 2001, APA Publications, page 310 describes it as the greatest recording of the work. The work was reviewed in Fanfare,Volume 9, Issues 1-2 ,Page 201, 1985 and the American Record Guide, Volume 49, Page 73, 1986. Selections for the album were also used in the Woody Allen film A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (see here).4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offenbach Arias and Overtures

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM The article had a COPYVIO issue but this has now been addressed - brief review excerpts will appear in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 1 at WP:NALBUM. The work was reviewed in Gramophone (see here). A critical review of the album is on pages 361-362 in the reference work American Opera Singers and Their Recordings: Critical Commentaries and Discographies, Clyde T. McCants, McFarland Press, 2004. The album was also reviewed in Out (magazine), 1996, Volume 4, Issues 6-10, Page 214.4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le nozze di Figaro (Georg Solti recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:NALBUM. This recording actually won (not just nominated) the 1983 Grammy Award for Best Opera Recording.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Aaaarrrggghhhh!!! another Grammy winner so meets WP:NALBUM let alone the multiple independent reviews that are included in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issues have now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. For further coverage of the album, see Opera, March 1983, p. 291; Clyde T. McCants: Opera for Libraries, 2003, p. 56; and John Louis DeGaetani. An Invitation to the Opera, 2015, p. 250..Niggle1892 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria (Raymond Leppard recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article, and nominated for a Grammy. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM Per above.4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See Opera, December 1980, p. 1214 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La damnation de Faust (Georg Solti recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being nominated for Grammy for best classical album makes this recording pass #4 of WP:ALBUM, which most definitely should take precedence over the WPCM “guidelines”.—Zingarese talk · contribs 13:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article (1), and being nominated for a Grammy (4). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. Opera, September 1982, p. 936 has yet another review.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fauré Mélodies

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the guidelines are developed because straight forward reading of some sources is often misleading. If it does not meet the guidelines we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the criteria at WP:NALBUM which is a policy with broad consensus throughout the encyclopedia. The guidelines in the essay cited in the AFD nomination are not enforceable, were authored by a very small minority of editors in one wiki project, and should not be considered as relevant policy in an AFD. Further, that essay is currently tagged for NPOV and is under discussion for removal.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM nominated for a Grammy that is a specified example under criterion 4. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied eventually. I hope. If I keep the will to live.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart & Rossini Arias

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the criteria at WP:NALBUM which is a policy with broad consensus throughout the encyclopedia. The guidelines in the essay cited in the AFD nomination are not enforceable, were authored by a very small minority of editors in one wiki project, and should not be considered as relevant policy in an AFD. Further, that essay is currently tagged for NPOV and is under discussion for removal.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM as nominated for a Grammy. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be added in due course. See Opera, May 1977, p. 472 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM. Nom has made a number of these nominations, not sure if WP:BEFORE was done. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Guidi (album)

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. I find it very difficult to believe that a Grammy award winning premiere recording by one of America's leading classical composers isn't notable enough for WP.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Niggle1892 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Winning one and being nominated for another Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM #4. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM, won a Grammy and nominated for another one. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM as a Grammy winner.4meter4 (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage à Paris

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NALBUM, there are four independent reviews (or 3 if editors want to count the Gramophone reviews of 1995 and 2016 as one) of this album that are included in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course. Opera Now, March 1995, p. 67 has a further review.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chants d'Auvergne, Vol. 2

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 1 in WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. This article is well sourced and clearly meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should never have been nominated for deletion based on highly biased essay that isn't in keeping with wikipedia's notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article, and the Grammy nomination a specific example given under criterion 4. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM with multiple reviews and a Grammy nomination. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course.

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chants d'Auvergne, Vol. 1

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like a number of these recent nominations have print media reviews. Why do you feel they don’t meet point number 1 of what you cite in your nomination? The reception sections could use some trimming/clean up, but they seem to feature multiple third party reviews. Honest question, as this music is al well outside of my areas of knowledge. Sergecross73 msg me 11:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sergecross73, the nominator was influenced by the essay by WP:WikiProject Classical Music cited in the AFD rationale above. However, the very stringent notability criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM. That discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#NPOV Problems with recording guideline. Also relevant is this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Proposal to permanently remove hatnote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, “reviews are not enough” is not a mantra I’ve commonly seen around the project. I think that essay needs to be re-evaluated. It doesn’t gel with the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the result has been many many articles brought to AFD which should never have been brought here.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 1 in WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. This article is well sourced and clearly meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should never have been nominated for deletion based on highly biased essay that isn't in keeping with wikipedia's notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per appearing to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article, plus a Grand Prix du Disque win. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. It has multiple reviews and won a prestigious Grand Prix du Disque. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. The album crossed over into popular culture when one of the lead characters of the TV show Northern Exposure was represented as a von Stade fan: the track "Bailero" was included on the tie-in CD that showcased music used during the series.Niggle1892 (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

French Opera Arias

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM (criteria 1). The article has several references from notable publications with inline citations. This should never have been nominated at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with numerous independent reviews that are included in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See Opera, September 1976, p. 840 for further discussion. And lastly, to anyone who has got to this point after writing about 48 of my other articles, thank you for giving them so much of your precious time. I'd never have written so many of them if I'd foreseen how much bother they'd cause!Niggle1892 (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Opera Arias

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

Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM (criteria 1). The article has several references from notable publications, including an entry in a published reference work on recordings, with inline citations. This should never have been nominated at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See Opera, July 2011, p. 870 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NALBUM (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuits d'été & La damoiselle élue

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

Fails all of the criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article (also of note is that the album was reviewed over a number of years, not just upon release), plus being nominated for a Grammy that is specified under criterion 4. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM criteria 1 as reasoned by Michael Bednarek.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issues have now been dealt with - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live! (Frederica von Stade album)

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

Fails all of the criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep per Michael Bednarek. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion about its suitability or otherwise is occurring here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. Nominated for a Grammy, and has multiple reviews. In addition to the two in Gramophone over the years and Stereo Review (all already cited in the article), there's one in the New York Times [16]. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article, add to this the NYT review mentioned above (thanks Voceditenore) plus being nominated for a Grammy that is specified under criterion 4, and this is definitely wikiarticleworthy. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issues have now been dealt with - brief review excerpts will be supplied in due course.Niggle1892 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shéhérazade (Frederica von Stade recording)

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

Fails all of the criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. Softlavender (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 20:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep per Michael Bednarek. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion about its suitability or otherwise is occurring here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with reviews in multiple reliable sources which overrules the SNG which is under criticism anyway, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article plus being nominated for a Grammy that is specified under criterion 4. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria of WP:NALBUM. It has multiple reviews and a Grammy nomination. The criteria from WikiProject Classical music cited in the nom is merely a WikiProject essay, unlike those at WP:NALBUM which is an official guideline. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issues have now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be added in due course. For further coverage of the album, see Newsweek, Vol. 97, 1981, p. 112; Saturday Review, Vol. 8, Issues 7-12, p. 90; Alan Blyth's Song on Record, 1986, p. 111; and The complete Penguin stereo record and cassette guide, 1984, p. 861Niggle1892 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Folks High School

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

A school for children under 15 years old, so probably fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. There is neither a claim of notability nor a reliable and independent source. William2001^(talk) 20:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 20:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 20:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In pakistan age of children to go to school is minimum 3 years and maximum 15 to 16 years and for references i have added 1 news media sources which i found in google and 3 external links , if still it is not notable admin can delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that the title says "High School," so I withdraw my statement that it fails SCHOOLOUTCOME, but I still think it does not meet the notability guidelines. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 03:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small, private school, without any evidence of notable alumni or teachers. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song Recital

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

Fails all of the criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. Softlavender (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The referred guideline is a an advice on style in the form of an essay. Nominated for a Grammy, the album satisfies WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep per Michael Bednarek. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently be considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:ALBUM. 4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion about its suitability or otherwise is occurring here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. The article's COPYVIO issue has now been addressed - brief quotes from reviews will be supplied in due course. See Opera, July 2011, p. 870 for further discussion.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Across Your Dreams

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

Fails all of the criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently being considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion about its suitability or otherwise is occurring here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUM. I found several significant reviews of this album, including a whole radio segment on NPR and Deseret News. That's enough coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:NALBUM criteria one.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NALBUM with multiple independent reviews that are included in the article, add to that reviews highlighted by 4meter4 above, and this is a slam dunk (and a waste of time for afd watchers .... gggrrrrr:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. And apologies to anyone who's developing AfD related RSI.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas with Flicka

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

Fails all of the criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria in WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings is from an essay by a WikiProject and does not carry the broad support of wikipedia policy. Further, this guideline section is currently be considered for removal for WP:NPOV concerns, as well as its conflict with the policy at WP:ALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per WP:TVSHOW. First, this article is not about an album but a television special filmed and broadcast nationally on PBS. Multiple publications reviewing this work exist, including the Los Angeles Times.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSHOW.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The LA Times Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chicago Police Department#Controversies and brutality. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skullcap Crew

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

I think that the way this article is presented could constitute libel. It is the media and complainents who are labeling these men as the "Skullcap Crew", not the courts or the police department. I would rename the article to something neutral and expand its coverage, or delete it. I welcome a vigorous discussion on this. Rogermx (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chicago Police Department#Controversies and brutality Doesn't meet the American definition of libel (easily fixed with the words 'so-called'); a group of cops who are oft-sued on the surface are notable easily. This is an expansion candidate in the CPD article. Nate • (chatter) 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage. From what I can tell, this "group" has only ever received passing mentions. There are also BLP issues with using their full names as well. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chicago Police Department#Controversies and brutality per Nate.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Location-based commerce

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a mess, not an article. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Please ping me if you think you have saved it. Bearian (talk)
Delete unsourced and barely readable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to list of gig economy companies. While the number of !votes is close, the voting pattern - some delete votes, then a substantial improvement to the article, then exclusively keep votes, including a withdrawal from the original nominator - is a clear sign to keep. Based on the suggestions from Cunard and 4meter4, and the current content of this article, I will go ahead and move to list of gig economy companies. I believe that these updates to this article also address the comments from each of the delete voters, who all found the previous definition of "on-demand companies" vague and inconsistent, one even citing Gig economy as a more clear term. ST47 (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of on-demand companies

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

Arbitrary and poorly defined list. Rathfelder (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not represent a world-wide view, is vague (On-demand can mean a number of things such as TV streaming), and is not notable. The basis is original research. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absurdly poorly defined. Shopping at my local grocery store and ordering delivery from Pizza Hut are on demand too, right? Gig economy is far from on-demand. Reywas92^Talk 17:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Needs to be clearer in scope and definition. Either that, or I vote to add Pizza Hut for Reywas92. What defines "on-demand?" It's too subjective without any type of definition that can be followed. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to list of gig economy companies per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "gig economy companies" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Kalleberg, Arne L.; Dunn, Michael (2016). "Good Jobs, Bad Jobs in the Gig Economy" (PDF). Perspectives on Work: 10–13, 74. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-09-23. Retrieved 2019-09-23.
  The article uses the Congressional Research Service's definition of the gig economy as:
  the collection of markets that match providers to consumers on a gig (or job) basis in support of on-demand commerce. In the basic model, gig workers enter into formal agreements with on-demand companies to provide services to company’s clients. Prospective clients request services through an Internet-based technological platform or smartphone application that allows them to search for providers or to specify jobs. Providers (gig workers) engaged by the on-demand company provide the requested service and are compensated for the jobs.
  The article further notes:
  The gig economy is generally charac terized by short-term engagements among employers, workers, and customers. In this sense, the gig economy is not new. Instead, it represents a digital version of the offline atypical, casual, freelance, or contingent work arrangements characteristic of much of the economy prior to the middle of the twentieth century and that have reappeared in the past thirty years.
  What differentiates work in the gig economy is that it operates in a new work ecosystem that is managed by online platforms, which broker work between employers and workers. Hence, digitization is fueling a new peer-to-peer schema that has important implications for the nature of work and the quality of jobs.
  The majority of gig companies can be located in one of four categories of work platforms: crowdwork platforms, transportation platforms, delivery/home task platforms, and online freelance platforms. The form and function of companies within each platform are relatively homogeneous, suggesting an organization field that is becoming more established (Aldrich and Ruef 2006).
  The article provides a list of gig economy companies in each of four categories.
  It lists gig economy companies that are "crowdwork platforms" as:
  1. mturk.com
  2. crowdflower.com
  3. crowdsource.com
  4. clickwork.com
  It lists gig economy companies that are "online freelance platforms" as:
  1. upwork.com
  2. freelancer.com
  It lists gig economy companies that are "delivery/home task platforms" as:
  1. handy.com
  2. taskrabbit.com
  3. Amazon Flex
  4. instacart.com
  It lists gig economy companies that are "transportation platforms" as:
  1. uber.com
  2. lyft.com
2. De Stefano, Valerio (2016). "The rise of the "just-in-time workforce": On-demand work, crowdwork and labour protection in the "gig-economy"" (PDF). International Labour Organization. Retrieved 2019-09-23. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  The article is published by the United Nations agency International Labour Organization and lists these companies in a table titled "Principal platforms and apps in the gig-economy":
  1. Uber
  2. Lyft
  3. Sidecar
  4. Handy
  5. Taskrabbit
  6. Care.com
  7. Postmates
  8. Amazon Mechanical Turk
  9. Crowdflower
  10. Crowdsource
  11. Clickworker
  The table is sourced to: "Smith, R.; Leberstein, S. 2015. Rights on Demand: Ensuring Workplace Standards and Worker Security in the On-Demand Economy, New York, National Employment Law Project."
3. Oppong, Thomas (2018). Working in the Gig Economy: How to Thrive and Succeed When You Choose to Work for Yourself. London: Kogan Page. ISBN 978-0-7494-8355-5. Retrieved 2019-09-23.
  The book notes on page 5:
  Gig work is not just limited to Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo, TaskRabbit, or UpWork.
4. Gee, Kelsey (2017-08-08). "In a Job Market This Good, Who Needs to Work in the Gig Economy?". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-09-23. Retrieved 2019-09-23.
  The article discusses the gig economy companies:
  1. Uber
  2. Instacart
  3. Lyft
  4. Postmates
  5. UrbanSitter
  6. DoorDash
5. Savitz, Eric J. (2019-09-11). "Uber, Lyft, and Others Struggle to Deal With California Labor Bill". Barron's. Archived from the original on 2019-09-23. Retrieved 2019-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  This week, the California state senate voted 29-11 to approve AB5, a measure that requires gig economy companies like Uber (ticker: UBER), Lyft (LYFT), DoorDash and Postmates to treat their workers as employees, rather than contractors.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article.
The article previously had 0 sources. It now has 33 sources.
The article previously did not have a clear definition of "on-demand companies". I have reframed it to discuss "gig economy companies" and provided a clear definition of what the "gig economy" is from the public domain source the Congressional Research Service.
The list previously almost only had American companies. I have added companies based in Australia, China and the United Kingdom.
The article no longer violates Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. It instead now clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.
Cunard (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly improved thank you. I am happy to withdraw my proposal.Rathfelder (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Rockphed (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and rename to list of gig economy companies. Nice work User:Cunard!4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Shea (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable only as a local authority councillor. As always, this is not a level of political office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL -- politicians at the local level get articles only if either (a) they serve in a major metropolitan global city on the order of London, or (b) they can be referenced to a depth and range of media coverage that makes them much more special than most other local councillors. But that's not what this is doing; about half of its footnotes are primary sources which are not support for notability at all, and the other half are simply glancing namechecks of his existence in purely routine local coverage of local politics -- exactly zero of them are actually notability-supporting reliable source coverage about John O'Shea for the purposes of establishing that he would be more notable than the other 59 councillors in North Tyneside who don't have articles at all. This is simply not how you get a local councillor over NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. I didn't properly read WP:NPOL before hastily accepting the draft and assumed that politicians who held any office were notable. Lesson learned. My apologies. lovkal (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. As the person who created the page I thought the person in question had an usual political career at the Local Authority level. It is very usual for any Councillor to serve on three different authorities. I also considered that since the person in question was the Deputy Leader and the Leader of the Opposition on a major metropolitan local authority that passed the notable test and why he is more notable than any of the other 59 councillors. I would like the page to remain. However this may just be because I am sentimental given it's the first page I have created. I will happily listen to people with more experience.TeaAndCake1819 (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a local councillor, does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor does he meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Member of the North Tyneside Council. A local councilmember does not automatically pass WP:NPOL and the expectation is that a local councilmember receives substantive national or international coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gillybrands

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

Same as Lairhillock Inn (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lairhillock Inn): Literally none of this article or its references is about the Inn itself, and I can't find sources attesting to notability. A self-appellation of "historic" doesn't doesn't go that far in the UK... Reywas92^Talk 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that this inn has any particular significance, or even if it is still functioning as an inn. Most of the content of the article is only of peripheral relevance to the inn. --94.196.164.61 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kaweendra (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete is described in the OS name book: ([17], [18]) The history alluded to in the article might make it notable, but I haven't been able to find any in-depth coverage.----Pontificalibus 17:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note The Inn was apparently called "Jeally Bran's" in the mid-eighteenth century ([19]).----Pontificalibus 06:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge/redirect to Causey Mounth as a minor feature on this drovers' road heritage path, See Heritage Paths:Causey Mounth ("Further still the road passes Gillybrands Farm, formerly Jeally Branns Inn"). 24.151.50.175 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than plain delete. If this was on a drovers road, it would have been a drovers' inn, not a coaching inn. I doubt it needs a free-standing article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not seem notable enough for an article on its own, but merge seems like a possible way to go. However I would note that further to the point Peterkingiron raises, both this and the article on Causey Mounth seem to be a little contradictory as to the road's status with the Causey Mounth article describing it as a drovers' road, but also suggesting it was the "main highway between Stonehaven and Aberdeen" and if this was a coaching in that would suggest that it was more than just a drovers' road. Dunarc (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Chaim Carlebach

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

Deprodded without improvement, with the rationale, "Rabbi of a famous synagogue. Books were written about him. Comes from well known rabbinic dynasty." However, not sure how "famous" the synagogue is, since there is very little significant coverage of it. His twin brother got quite a bit of significant coverage, and Eli is mentioned in many of those articles, but none very in-depth about him. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak keep~~ - my assessment is in the table below. --MrClog (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the sigcov section of the 2nd source, it was green at first. --MrClog (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/27/obituaries/eli-c-carlebach-65-rabbi-of-synagogue-on-upper-west-side.html	The NY Times	I might be a bit liberal here, but I feel that the obituary gives enough information for it to be just considered sigcov.	✔ Yes
Politik, Wirtschaft, Öffentliches Leben	Appears reliable.	I have switched to "no" here because I realise that I misunderstood what the book was at first. The book is simply a collection of many, many people that emigrated from Germany it seems. The mention in the book is simply a listing telling readers where (in which city) Eli was at what dates, but not much more than that.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep as per reasoning above. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the obit is hardly significant coverage, not everyone who gets a NYT obit is notable. And the second source doesn't come close to meeting sigcov - it's a mere listing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I have changed my vote to delete per the reason in the template above. --MrClog (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the initial reasoning 2 editors are relying on has changed it would be beneficial to review whether they maintain their views distinctly or wish to change with MrClog
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rabbi of World Famous and landmarked Synagogue, book published about his stories, certainly notable as a Rabbi. Eleanor Denmark (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Times obit it a very significant indicator of notability. In addition, I found additional coverage in Google Books which either discusses him or shows his relevance as an academic through citations of his work: here, here, here, here, and here. In addition, he and his brother were the subject of an article in the Journal of synagogue music, 2009, Volume 34, Page 56.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having a NYT obit does not make one notable. Having grown up in NYC, I know quite a few folks with NYT obits, none of them meet WP's notability criteria. The 5 citations above are all trivial mentions of this rabbi, virtually all of which are in dealing with his more famous brother. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that sentiment. The NYT has a paid obituary section which is not notable, and also an un-paid obituary section which only covers notable people of significance and is highly selective. This obituary falls in the latter section, being an unpaid for obituary.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpgate

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

Literally just a fancy term for "it's a wormhole". No secondary sources of note, and the entire thing is a WP:OR example farm. If deleted, it should probably be redirected to Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find a single source that convinced me "jumpgates" should have a page of their own. I don't understand why this page exists when it serves the exact same function as Wormholes in fiction. Any content of high enough quality (i.e. not original research) could be salvaged and added to that other page and have "Jumpgate" redirect there. Although, as ZXCVBNM mentioned, redirecting it the MMORPG of the same name could also be an option. As a a third option, it could be turned into a disambiguation page that defined the term and links to both Wormholes in fiction and Jumpgate: The Reconstruction Initiative. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a hatnote can be added to the Jumpgate game article that sends people to Wormholes in fiction._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially redundant to Wormholes in fiction. The instances mentioned here should be included there, if appropriate. It has no sources that are unrelated to the works mentioned. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term is used in some published literature in google books: [20], [21], [22]. Not sure if this brings it passed the threshold of notability. I'm on the fence.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Thomian Tamil Debate Encounter

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

This one seems to be a non notable debate and hasn't been updated for a quite long time. Only the Big match rivalry, the Royal-Thomian is more popular. The content in the article entirely depends upon the respective schools websites. It is quite ironical that such an article of its kind existed for all these years (since 2008) without much notice. I initially PRODed this one but was later suggested by another editor to nominate it for Afd. Abishe (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with the nominator there is no evidence that this is a notable event - lacks any independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mareo Kamei

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

PROD declined on the technicality that PROD had been attempted in 2008. I agree the subject is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable broadcaster. I couldn't find a single mention of him in a decent source in English and the sources I found in Japanese were, much like the article's sole citation, directory-style short descriptions of him as an employee of the Mainichi Broadcasting System. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG. There are thousands of announcers not clear why this subject is notable and lacks third-party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The closest thing I could find in the ja.wiki article to a sourced statement that would prove notability is the claim that his show won an award of the Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association, but it was one of seven winners, and not the top one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New Gods. Sandstein 20:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boom tube

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

Non-notable piece of fictional technology/fantasy. A WP:BEFORE didn't come up with much of note in the way of secondary sources. It could potentially be merged to Mother Box. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - No reason to have this as a separate article. Merger with Mother Box could be a solution, and so could using the content to create a sub-section on the Wormholes in fiction page. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Gods. The topic is not independently notable, and does not have any reliable, secondary sources discussing it in any way that would pass the WP:GNG, but it is a plausible search term, and as they are discussed briefly on the main article on the New Gods, redirecting there makes sense. I would argue against a merge/redirect to Mother Box, as that article has similar notability issues. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Gods.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to USB flash drive. Sandstein 09:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jump drive

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

As with the previous deletion discussion of hyperdrive, "jump drive" is merely a WP:OR example farm of various versions of a hyperspace concept under a different name. "Jump drive" is indeed used as a term for a hyperspace drive in many works, but is not independently notable as a concept. A possibility could be deletion and redirection to USB flash drive with a hatnote going to hyperspace. It already has one there, it just needs a change of target._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with the other articles related to hyperspace/wormhole travel that were proposed for deletion, I don't see any reason why this should be a stand-alone page rather than a subsection of the Wormholes in fiction page. Of course, this only refers to a short paragraph explaining the meaning and origin of the term, and not the entire WP:OR list that comes with it. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? Isn't this a redirect to somewhere?, sounds like a valid search term. Govvy (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common term for a USB Flash drive. JumpDrive may be the redirect you're talking about._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USB flash drive with a redirect from there to Hyperdrive. The hardware meaning is much more common than the science fiction one. The latter is very rare, based on my many years of reading science fiction. The article only cites one actual instance in fiction (Deathworld 2), the others being known under other names. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to USB flash drive, per nomination. As mentioned, the term being used in regards to the real-world product is much more common than the seldom used synonym for hyperspace, and would be more useful as a redirect to that. The information currently in the article is poorly sourced, thus does not need to be preserved. As proposed, a hatnote on the USB flash drive article will be sufficient for directing readers to the Hyperspace article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We can't keep relisting this forever. We have 2 to keep, and 2 to merge, with the original nominator not expressing an opinion, we have several new refs being added by some of the keep !voters. Closing as no consensus. ST47 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bankelal

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

PROD rationale was "Non-notable character article with little to no chance of being sourced." But I'm taking this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge basic Real world info to Raj Comics. Most info not worth saving. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above was written before the new sources added. I don't have the skills to properly judge the new sources. The article is in dire need of clean up, but AfD is not clean up. From the info currently presented in the article, I still believe a merge might be the best option, but I wouldn't oppose a refund for something more substantive and encyclopedic. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:INDIA contributor here, who is also familiar with Indian comics characters. This is one of the very popular comics characters with a very large number of episodes. The sourcing issues are due to WP:BIAS (mainly langauage and Internet bias). So it is wrong to use the same measuring scale for Indian and American comics characters. We are doing a disservice to Wikipedia if we delete such articles on the basis of lack of coverage in English media. This will impact our coverage of Indian topics. Inspite of the BIAS I can find multile reliable sources (including BBC, India Today, Rajasthan Patrika, News 18 etc) that mention it as one of the popular Indian comic characters, which are enough for me to !vote keep here. Here are some of the sources along with translation.--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bankelal among the four superheroes whose animated movies are set to be released.^[1]
Bankelal among the four widely sold comics in India.^[2]
Bankelal seen among the list of popular comics.^[3]^[4]
Significant coverage on a comic related site.^[5]
listed among the 11 most memorable comics character of India.^[6]
Among the top 10 comics without which the summers were incomplete.^[7]--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "जल्दी ही पर्दे पर आने वाला है 'नागराज'". News18 India. November 4, 2017.
^ "आठ आने की कॉमिक्स अब लाख की". BBC News हिंदी.
^ DelhiAugust 3, India Today Tech New; August 4, 2018UPDATED; Ist, 2018 00:17. "No, Amazon India these are not the Hindi comics we are looking for". India Today. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ "कॉमिक्स : हर घर में रहते थे ये चाचा, गुदगुदाती हैं इनकी बातें". www.patrika.com.
^ Srivastav, Vaibhav (March 20, 2017). "Introducing : Bankelal!".
^ "Tinkle to Doga: 11 amazing comic books every 90s kid will remember reading". September 26, 2017.
^ "bankelal". Navbharat Times. April 21, 2014.

Keep. I added new refs and cleaned out some of the most egregious directory information that I don't think belonged. (But even so: WP:NOTCLEANUP.) There are other references that discuss this topic, like [23], [24], [25], but they're scholarly articles behind a paywall, so I haven't been able to use them to source any statements rn. Ford MF (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sure if the character is notable, but the comic book series he features in may be, based on the sources presented (that I can read). Maybe this could be rewritten to be about the comic series rather than a fictional character? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus The series that he features in is called Bankelal series. If you are referring to the comics publisher then that would be Raj Comics. If you have found that the comic book series he features in is notable then IMHO that is another positive opinion to keep this article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it's more of a technicality - character =/= comic book series. One of those topics is likely notable, but I don't think both are, and from what I see the series may be more notable than the character, which would suggest a need to rewrite the article a bit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article or renaming/rewriting it should be discussed on the article talk page and not on the AfD page. per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The question right now is should Wikipedia contain an article on this and the answer is yes. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Raj Comics. it looks to me like the sources are not so much about the character Bankelal, but more largely about the comic books the character is in. It's sourced, but the sources are not really about Bankelal as the main subject. Some of the websites look like they may be promotional and not independent of the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter Toads

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

PROD rationale was "Non-notable character article with little to no chance of being sourced." But I'm taking this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge basic real world info to Raj Comics. We can keep the creation info, but doesn't need it's own article. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a further ref, and there are others that I can't access rn ([this book|https://books.google.com/books?id=SSM4r36KjuQC] talks about it according to Google Search, but Google has no preview and I'm not in a library.) Ford MF (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:INDIA contributor here, who is also familiar with Indian comics characters. This is one of the popular comics characters published in Hindi language. The sourcing issues are due to WP:BIAS (mainly language and Internet bias). So it is wrong to use the same measuring scale for Indian and American comics characters. We are doing a disservice to Wikipedia if we delete such articles on the basis of lack of coverage in English media. This will impact our coverage of Indian topics. Inspite of the BIAS the user above has produced a RS, which are enough for me to !vote keep here, considering sources can be found in offline Hindi language media.--DBig Xrayᗙ 17:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: added a source, see discussion below.--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lack of availability of English language sources doesn't inherently signify that there will be Indian sources. I'm sure the ratio of notable to not-notable characters are similar. The source in the article seems to mention the topic in the capacity of a passing mention. I'm sure the author is notable, but that doesn't trickle down to the characters. TTN (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTN The opinion of local contributors who are familiar with the culture should be given weight in such cases that involves a vernacular language topic. The existing sources can help to make a calculated assumption on the presence/absence of vernacular language source. It is not that the English language sources dont exist, it is just that the number of them are not as much as the sources for English language comic books. So one can easily make mistakes in trying to judge the notability on the number of available sources. The book "Adventure Comics and Youth Cultures in India"^[1] has a section titled "Glossary of key Indian adventure comic book characters" where Fighter Toads is described in a para. When a book on youth culture covers the subject in a list of "key" characters it must mean something. If I get more time and dig more I am sure I will be able to find more but my point is, we can judge based on what we have at hand. I hope you will agree and reconsider your !vote to support. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kaur, Raminder; Eqbal, Saif (2018). Adventure Comics and Youth Cultures in India. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780429784316. Retrieved 13 September 2019.

Two sentences in a book is not significant. I'm not saying sources don't exist, as I lack the lingual abilities to confirm that, but I won't simply believe they exist on good faith either. What people don't seem to understand is that even if this is deleted, it can be brought back if notability is proven. This article has existed for 13 years. It has been given the benefit of the doubt. There's the idea that there is no need to rush things, but that is abused to keep stagnant pages around. TTN (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the healthiest thing to do would be to mass redirect most of these articles to either the publisher page or author pages, and then work to split them out from there. I'm sure without a doubt India has plenty of characters that are notable, but it seems to have the Marvel/DC issue where people got out of hand with making pages. TTN (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you to read WP:BIAS (if you havent yet) since you are claiming the exact opposite. We don't go on drives, deleting stubs claiming that "it was stagnant for x years". A Stub may remain stagnant due to lack of a volunteer editor interested to contribute there. It doesn't necessarily mean the stub was non notable. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that that can be used as an argument for inaction. It's not that different than people arguing the same about other characters, but now there is a language barrier. It's up to editors creating pages to prove notability. I get that sources could potentially be abundant for a topic, but it could also be there is nothing. This isn't an assumption of bad faith on your part at all. I just don't have any faith in the waiting game after so many people have promised results for nothing to happen. So many projects concerned for a minute, who then just go on to not even deal with the articles until I once again bring them to AfD. TTN (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inspite of WP:BIAS, I have already presented a reliable source, a book from a reputed publisher Taylor & Francis, on youth culture, that covers the subject, in a list of "key" comic characters, I am not sure why you are choosing to ignore this. This IMHO is enough to argue that the article should stay. If you don't feel the same, then there is a difference of opinion and we can agree to disagree and let AfD run its course. Thank you for responding and engaging in the discussion. cheers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is reliable, but it provides nothing in particular about the characters. Being present in a reliable source is not the criteria, but rather being present in enough of a capacity to add substance to the article. One single substandard reference is not enough to latch onto the possibility of future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the source is reliable. Now, Do you agree with the source, when it says that Fighter Toads is a "key comic character in India" ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's not mentioned in any meaningful capacity. One person's opinions on what constitutes key characters isn't particularly helpful in determining potential notability. The glossary gives a cursory glance of some 50-ish characters. The likelihood of every one being notable is pretty low. It's not enough to give consideration that there may be more sources. TTN (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book (that you agree is a reliable source) calls Fighter Toads a "key comic character in India" , and yet you refuse to agree with the book, and call it non notable. I will note this and end the discussion. I have already made my point and we seem to disagree. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- almost completely unsourced and choc-a-bloc full of original research and fancruft. It's no use claiming "But I'm sure there must be sources out there somewhere" if nobody can produce them. Maybe the title would be useful as a redirect to BattleToads for the benefit of people who are misremembering the name of the unbeatable old NES game. Reyk _YO! 13:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and A reliable source that claims that Fighter Toads is a "key comic character in India" has already been produced above by me. So it is not true that "Nobody has produced them"--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot locate any significant coverage to indicate notability. Two sentences in a book doesn't cut it. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a Hindi language comic, so IMHO you may not be looking at the right place. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony (comics)

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

PROD rationale was "Non-notable character article with little to no chance of being sourced." But I'm taking this to AFD for input on a merge or redirect. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current title, as too generic to be worthwhile. If Anthony (Raj Comics) were to be created, merge to Raj Comics--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Killer Moff Are there any other comic character named Anthony ? Why are you sggesting an unnecessary disambiguation by adding Raj to comics ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, Anthony Ludgate (Doctor Druid) is the first springing to mind. I can't think of any other mononyms, but I wasn't aware of this one until the AfD and don't think it's notable. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind reply User:Killer Moff. It is understandable that you have not heard about this considering that it is an Indian comics published in Hindi language. The sourcing issues are due to WP:BIAS (language bias and internet bias). I am still pondering over the notability and will decide and comment later. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All relevant details of this character are covered on the two pages of the following academic source:

Kaur, Raminder; Eqbal, Saif (2018). Adventure Comics and Youth Cultures in India. Routledge. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-1138358683. Retrieved 4 September 2019.

It is also briefly covered in this/this article of the author and journalist Naresh Fernandes. But its main coverage must be in Hindi language media of 1990s and 2000s, which is mostly offline. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:INDIA contributor here. The sources produced by NitinMlk are enough to convince me to keep as passing WP:GNG. I agree that more sources can be found in Hindi offline media. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming that the above references are incorporated into the article. Clearly there is some notability demonstrated, but the article should reflect that to be kept. It's important to remember that other cultural/language fiction can have something as notable as a Rick Jones out there for example. (Proper disambiguation is something else entirely that can be solved with a simple move if needed.) -2pou (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added these refs to the article. The rename discussion if needed should happen at the article talk page and not on AfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG based on the sources provided by NitinMlk.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Da Prince

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

This doesnt pass the notability standards of Wikipedia and the sources are questionable. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there's enough coverage (the gist of which is listed in the references section) for a weak keep. Some sources have covered him in depth, like this one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & COMMENT: Wow, what a thought!! I am the creator of this article. I must state that they has been an ongoing crusade by ChaloNiZambia to nominate several African based articles for deletion. He last edited in July 2019 with minor edits in between and then returned today to nominate this one. In this instance, Paul is an evidently notable Namibian based singer and is subject to highly reliable independent sources. All the newspaper articles used, The Namibian, Namibian Sun & the Windheok Observer are top Namibian newspapers which have written about his work in great detail. They are all Reliable Independent sources with decades of reporting independent work. The subject clearly passes Wikipedia guidelines and is listed in notable and independent Namibian sources such as The Namibian & Namibian Sun. Its very unfortunate that we have Individuals within the sub-saharan Africa region whose main objective is but to discredit the achievements of others. Its a definite keep 10MB (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the edit history of the Nominator ChaloNiZambia shows he has made 56 edits with an ongoing crusade to nominate articles for deletion. Half of his edits are that of nominating African articles for deletion with more or less similar reasons, "questionable sources" 10MB (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ChaloNiZambia looks like a good faith editor to me. I see two AFD nominations and forty or so other edits, with some AFD votes thrown in. Anyway this is not relevant really-- what is relevant are the notability merits of the article. BTW, you can certainly !vote as article creator.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources such as national newspapers already referenced in the article so there is no valid reason for deletion imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Atlantic306 Ceethekreator (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306, and close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadh Orhan

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

I can find no coverage of this individual under the title name or the supposed new name. Fails WP:NACTOR and GNG> Praxidicae (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~No determination yet on whether the article should be kept, but~~ I found nothing to connect the subject to this supposed "Rahaao" name that an IP has repeatedly been trying to insert. Suggest treating it as the disruptive action of some random person trying to get their name into Wikipedia. --Finngall ^talk 14:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A thorough search should be checking for "Sadh Orhan" or "Saad Orhan", as he has received English-language mentions under both spellings, but I found nothing better than passing mentions and blog posts for either. Can anyone find anything more substantial in Hindi or other non-English sources? --Finngall ^talk 15:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Child support in Israel

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

Not notable enough to have its own page with the current incarnation being far too biased and written in a non-encylopediac manner. Zubin12 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous version of the article needed references, but it's certainly a notable topic. Just googling "child support Israel" will net several English-language news articles.
Also in English, sections of Child Support: From Debt Collection to Social Policy, The Israeli Legal System: An Introduction, Women in Israel: A State of Their Own, The Jewish Family, Introduction to the Law of Israel.
Most sources are in Hebrew. Zerach (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously a very notable subject, with a plethora of sources available in both English and certainly Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not terrible, but it is awfully skimpy. That's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk)
Keep per everyone above. A stub of an important topic shouldn't be deleted but expanded.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although cleanup appears to be needed, there are enough unchallenged sources brought forth as substantive and reliable that it appears the GNG notability criteria is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MGC Pharmaceuticals

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

no evidence of notability . Highly promotional article by paid editor, unwisely accepted from AfC. I am beginning to get the feeling we will need to use the same skepticism about notability claims for bitcoin companies, and apply it to enterprises in medical and recreational cannabis. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article defintiely has promo issues but these can be addressed through editing for quality. In terms of notability it meets the standards required by WP:ORG based on the following references: 1 2 3. The West Australian, Evening Standard, and Financial Review are all WP:NEWSORGs, the coverage extends over years, WP:AUD is met since these are national/regional sources. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ if those really are the three best sources. The West Australian article is very obviously a re-hashed press release - not independent, does not contribute towards notability. The Evening Standard one is also dubious - a bit of background, followed by some puffy quotes from their managing director, including some of their handy hints on choosing the right product, and information about pricing and where to buy - this looks to me like an paid article of some sort, rather than a genuinely independent piece of journalism; also worth noting that the Evening Standard is a free sheet, with no consensus as to reliability per WP:Perennial sources. I can't access the Financial Review article, but I note that it's written by a 'contributor' - this suggests a form of WP:UGC, as described at Perennial sources under 'Forbes.com contributors', which would not be useful in establishing notability. I'd be looking for better sources than this to be satisfied that NCORP is met; happy to reconsider my vote if better sources are identified. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Obviously a re-hashed press release" - OK, where's the press release? 2) So Evening Standard is reliable then, being a WP:NEWSORG, 3) "Contributor", otherwise known as a free-lancer, but is still a pass for WP:NEWSORG. Forbes is unreliable because of its lack of a proper editorial policy and essentially being a self-publishing platform - obviously not true of Financial Review.

PS - "if those really are the three best sources...". Honestly, you're supposed to confirm that for yourself, that's the whole point of WP:BEFORE. If you weren't satisfied with those three sources then you should have dug further and looked to see whether there were more there: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Notably this includes negative coverage which cannot simply be fobbed off as PR hype - really, I sometimes think that negative coverage of Corps is the only kind of coverage that won't simply get dismissed as PR at AFD. FOARP (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Look at the wording of the article - two sentences of background, followed by a bunch of statement from the company. They haven't got an opinion from an independent expert, there's no information you wouldn't expect to see in a press release, it's all 'Management said...', 'MSG said...', 'Managing Director Roby Zomer said...'. It's all exactly what you would expect to find in a press release, and nothing else. 2) There are different standards of NEWSORG - some of them are explicitly depracated. This one has no consensus on reliability, which is different from saying that it is reliable, so I would use it with caution, remembering that it's a free sheet that relies entirely on advertising revenue and advertorials for its income. In this particular article, they're literally telling you where you can buy the stuff, how much it costs, and allowing the MD to tell you all about the product and even give tips about choosing the right one for you. Again - no commentary or analysis from independent experts. It looks like a paid piece to me, or the sort of article they'd agree to run if you simultaneously bought a chunk of advertising. 3) I am not familiar enough with the Financial Review to know whether their editorial policy with regards to contributors is any better or worse than Forbes's - I can't see anything on RSN about it. I also can't access the source, so I offer no opinion on that source and would appreciate others' views on it.

WP:BEFORE gives instructions for things you should do before nominating an article for deletion - I am certain that DGG did a BEFORE prior to doing that. When I said 'the best three sources', I meant in a WP:THREE sort of way - when paid editors pack out articles about their clients with numerous junk sources, it's sometimes more efficient to identify and discuss the best ones rather than forcing everyone to wade through all of them individually before expressing an opinion. If there are better sources in there, which you think establish notability, I will take a look, and will happily change my vote if I'm convinced. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think all 12 (the three original ones plus the eight additional ones) are relevant, being instances of significant coverage in reliable sources indicating notability of the subject as required by WP:ORG, WP:AUD etc. WP:BEFORE is the process the nominator has to go through, but is also up to !voters to satisfy themselves that it was done. We should not simply !vote "delete" because something was nominated for deletion saying "It's up to them to do the WP:BEFORE, not me". FOARP (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, That's not what I did. I reviewed the three that you highlighted, assuming them to be the best ones, and found that two of them were not independent, and one I couldn't access but I wasn't sure of the reliability. I also had a look to see if anything better jumped out at me, but I'm not going to trawl through every single trash source a paid editor adds to an article when an administrator has already done the BEFORE. I am however prepared to review any sources that an editor in good standing and without a COI, such as yourself, believes contribute towards notability, so I'll look at the other ones you've put forward later today and see if they sway my opinion. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit - I agree that it is simply not worth looking at sources that are clearly PR of one kind or another. I skipped over every GNews hit that I didn't recognise as an RS. This is clearly a company which has engaged in aggressive PR and SEO (hence the negative stories are all after the tenth page of GNews results) so there's a lot of rubbish online about them. All the same there are also instances of what appears to be Sigcov in RS sufficient, in my view, to sustain notability, though of course intelligent people can differ on this. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP I've reviewed the sources that you linked. I can't access a couple of them (the Financial Times and the Australian), and a couple of them are still a bit 'press releasey' (e.g. ITNews), but I'm coming round to the view that there is enough coverage there. Can you confirm that the FT and Australian are giving the company significant coverage in their articles? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now can't access that FT article either, but from memory the part covering MGC was two paras and included a precis of the company. The Australian article is no longer accessible for me either, but was a multi-para story entirely about the conflict between Ross Smith and the board of MGC. FOARP (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, thanks. In light of the fact that there are apparently sources out there, which I can't access, and which may demonstrate notability. I can't quite get myself over the line to vote keep based on the ones I'm able to access, so I'm on the fence for now. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely non-notable promo article. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT Large mix of references, including explanations of what they're selling, what markets they're going, distribution details into which indicates WP:ROUTINE coverage and promotion. Even posting they're supply agreement, which is really beyond the pale. I wondered where they're putting all the ref's. It's plain native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 18:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the references discussed above? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FOARP (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be most useful if somebody could specifically look at the sources presented and evaluate each one. If you do that, and summarize your findings in a nice neat table, whoever closes this in a week from now will thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As WP:LISTED indicates, there are many references that meet WP:SIGCOV and thus demonstrate the notability of the publicly traded company. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote India

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

I mistakenly put this up for PROD, missing the fact that it had previously been nominated in 2010. This organisation does not appear notable to me; it was apparently shortlived. The list of sources includes several apparent duplicates and most of them are dead. I can find just two fairly brief mentions of Vote India in the entire list. The WaPo ref may substantiate notability, but I can’t access it. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient secondary and tertiary sources which are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would also note fails WP:NOTADVICE and WP:WEB - no evidence of impact or significance of the site.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination, and 4metre4 —usernamekiran(talk) 22:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Panshikar

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as sources provided are not reliable sources, and I can find nothing better through a search. The claim in the lead might suggest passing WP:NARTIST 1 or 4, but since I cannot find any sources that support the level of significance being claimed, it's hard to make that case. Hug^syrup 10:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very few source on Panditji. but we have availed few more . It's dificullt to find such for very old musician . User:Pratik89Roy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot vote to keep, sorry. I tried very hard to find sources for notability in various Bing and Google and news site searches, and in the Internet Archive, but could not find any source not already found. The one news source with his name is only his name and occupation, no other news of him. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References look pretty thin in English. Is anyone able to search in Hindi? Mccapra (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't have any coverage at all despite of this press release ^[1] in Marathi Worldnpeace (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formian

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor D&D creature, with virtually no reliable, secondary sources demonstrating any sort of notability to the topic. That said, there are a number of sources available for a potentially more notable programming language called "Formian", so a redirect to the D&D monster index might not be a great idea due to that. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first non-primary source I see on google is for the programming language. I think a redirect is contraindicated. Rockphed (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lapaliiya

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Geographical index of Toril. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fictional region completely fails the WP:GNG and has absolutely no real-world notability, as demonstrated by the complete absence of any reliable, secondary sources. And the proposed merge target mentioned above is a nearly completely un-sourced mess of cruft that I'm not sure should even be on Wikipedia itself, so I cannot recommend a redirect or merge there. Not that there is any reliably sourced information to merge anywhere, anyways. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no keep. This has no secondary sources, which means it is an article about something someone just dreamed up one day. Rockphed (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rockphed and Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Langadarma

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms nations. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable, secondary sources being used in the article, and I was able to find none upon searches. When the most you can say about the topic in its own article is "very little is known about it", then there is really nothing worth preserving or merging anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. List of Forgotten Realms nations is WP:GAMEGUIDE content so unless someone can remedy that issue, I cannot endorse merging or otherwise redirecting it there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reason is given for the "keep" or "merge" opinions. Sandstein 09:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonspear Castle

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of regions in Faerûn#Western Heartlands. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and List of regions in Faerûn is non-notable fancruft, so I have a hard time seeing why this information should be retained._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ZXCVBNM. While there are a few brief sources mentioning products that feature the location, such as the Baldur's Gate expansion, none of them indicate any sort of real world notability for the actual fictional location itself. I likewise agree with ZXCVBNM on the proposed merger target. Alternatively, I suppose I would be OK if this were instead changed to a Redirect to Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear, as that is pretty much the only notable article featuring the location. Rorshacma (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of regions in Faerûn#Western Heartlands.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or if you can find a suitable list, redirect to that list. Zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal national under-15 football team

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

Could not find independent reliable source of the subject with WP:SIGCOV in EN. Fails WP:NSPORT CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. SLBedit (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has the nominator heard of WP:BEFORE? Plenty of coverage out there, particularly in relation to their recent victory in the 2019 CONCACAF Boys' Under-15 Championship. Giant Snowman 09:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of youth level national team articles, why is this one singled out? The sourcing is a bit poor, but that can be addressed easily. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Govvy and GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy and GiantSnowman.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy and GiantSnowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple youth level national team articles. The sourcing just needs to be improved and that can be addressed easily. They were most recently the winners of 2019 CONCACAF Boys' Under-15 Championship, no reason to deleted.Victoryboy (Victoryboy) 10:50, 25 September 2019 (AEST)

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. JGHowes ^talk 02:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranu Mondal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Obviously, she is internet sensation in India right now due to social media but that doesn't mean she passes notability guideline. It is just due to single event that is Teri Meri. Its' too early to make page on her. Let wait for some time to let her win any music competition or award. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic BLP1E. ∯WBG^converse 11:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. ChotoBhai 20:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --LuciferEdits (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonne

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, since there is zero real world notability. Any of the info in the description which can be cited could be added to the list article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're talking about something sourced entirely from the Monster Manual. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and there is nothing of note TO merge. I can't endorse a redirect either, this is D&D Wikia material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters per onel5969.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete based on Rorshacma's comment.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ZXCVBNM. Rockphed (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ZXCVNM. There are zero non-primary sources showing any sort of notability whatsoever. There is no reliably sourced information to merge anywhere, and the proposed target for a Redirect is a non-notable game guide, so I can't agree with that proposition. Rorshacma (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against a second AfD being opened in the near future, if the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Notability_of_Roller_Hockey_International_players results in a relevant change to the guideline. ST47 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Clark (ice hockey)

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played a combined total of 63 games in the AHL and DEL and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. He also has no preeminent honours to pass #3 or #4. Tay87 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Does not meet the requirements at WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per Djsasso.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in the highest level of professional roller hockey so he meets WP:SPORTBASIC. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Per above, I request the nomination be withdrawn. I honestly did not take roller hockey into account and I apologise for my ignorance towards it. Tay87 (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might want to reconsider your withdraw vote. For one thing you can't withdraw once another editor has also voted to delete the article. More importantly, there's no evidence he competed at the highest level as WP:NSPORT requires. The Roller Hockey World Cup, which started in 1936, is the internationally recognized world championship for roller hockey and there's no evidence that he ever played in it. Playing in the only pro league in North America does not mean he played at the highest level--especially when the average pay was $314 a week [26] for around 10 weeks and the players were predominantly minor league ice hockey players trying to stay in shape. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: Oh. Well, that's a interesting one to say the least. DJSasso messaged me about Pro Roller Hockey and how players can be notable for more than one reason, or in this case other sports. And it's true, I never once put Roller Hockey into account when doing the nomination, so I certainly appreciated the heads-up he gave me regarding this. But now I just feel confused. Tay87 (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out the Roller Hockey World Cup is actually for a different sport. That is for Roller hockey (quad) and not Roller in-line hockey which he played. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did he ever compete at the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship? I believe that is the same sport and if he competed there I would agree he meets WP:NSPORT and will readily change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on my comment above, there's no evidence he ever played at the roller hockey world championships so WP:NSPORT is not met. In addition, he fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and there's no significant independent coverage to support a claim that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC defines the highest level of the sport also as the highest professional league. Which Roller Hockey International was and which he played in, and which received a lot of press as well as primetime sports coverage while it existed. -DJSasso (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that everyone who played in a short-lived, now defunct, roller hockey league is automatically notable? Do you have any evidence this was the highest level of pro roller hockey in the world? I can see high school football players on primetime TV but that doesn't make them all notable. And they're pro in the sense of making money, not in earning a living. Some organizations/sports differentiate. Papaursa (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djsasso. Rlendog (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McKenzie (ice hockey)

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played only 52 games in the American Hockey League and at least 200 is required to pass #2. Also has no preeminent honours in the ECHL to pass #3. Tay87 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another article on a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the requirements at WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. There's no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable (TV series)

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

The article is two sentences long. This is clearly not long enough for a substantive article; I can understand not wanting to delete the article when it was first created, but when it has been so for over six years, there is clearly no indication of any editor improving it any further. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - none of the reasons for deletion offered are valid. Articles can just be stubs! Japanese language article has both substantive materials and sourcing that indicate topic is notable. matt91486 (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- English language sources [27], suggest that viewership for some episodes is above 25 million, again strong indication of notability. Either way it readily passes NTVSERIES having been on FujiTV for decades. matt91486 (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Matt91486, do you plan to expand it at all? Or do you want it kept for the sake of it? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not I plan to expand it is entirely irrelevant for its notability. I do not have Japanese language skills, so I would not be particularly well suited for expanding it. But a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: FWIW, Nakayama says 25 million people watched that episode, and millions more watched online. "People in China and Korea are very interested in what people in Japan are interested in," he says. is a primary source that would be unacceptable for that claim, and given the implication that the online millions were overseas viewers who couldn't watch on their TVs and that 25 million people in Japan (1/5 of the population of the whole country) tuned in is a bit ... unbelievable. There are lots of different ways to write "25 million" that are acceptable in formal written Japanese so I'm not going to bother to check, but a quick Googling for the most intuitive one for me brought up only a blog about the number of Twitter followers Conan O'Brien has. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An entirely fair point -- and I certainly wouldn't add that into the article or anything. But, frankly, even if the number were five times less than that, it would easily pass NTVSERIES as a nationally broadcast program. matt91486 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has been a hard one for me to make a decision on, while this may be a notable Japanese show (based on the fact that it has been running from 1997 to now as I could not find viewership numbers) the English article is likely so short due to the fact that it is not very popular (if at all) with international audiences. As far as I can tell it was never released with subtitles in anything other than Japanese making it inaccessible to people that do not speak Japanese. I see little point in keeping an article that gives almost no information about something inaccessible and of little interest to someone that does not know Japanese. While an article being short may not be a valid reason for deletion I do believe this fails WP:NOTE in regards to the English Wikipedia. Hintswen Talk | Contribs 12:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say this fails WP:DIRECTORY point 7. Hintswen Talk | Contribs 12:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no time limit and User:Matt91486 credibly asserts notability and the potential for expansion. @User:Alex 21: Trying to blackmail the expansion of a stub by threatening to axe it is not an approved procedure; nor does sarcasm help. @User:Hintswen - WP:Directory is about indiscriminate lists: this article contains no lists. Your main point about foreign language topics is just wrong, alas. Ingratis (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable per the Japanese article, and is correctly tagged for expansion from that. What I can't understand is why an editor who thinks the article is too short would want to shorten it even further to zero length. And why on Earth shouldn't people like me, who can't read Japanese, want to know something about Japanese topics? It is even more important to have an article in an English encyclopedia when a Google search in English finds little of relevance, but Japanese sources are available. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a case of 'better something than nothing at all', and we don't delete stubs because they exist as stubs, especially for series that have aired this long. Though because of the existence of the Netflix miniseries, a move of this page to Unbelievable (Japanese TV series) should be considered for the purposes of clarity, and this title converted to a DAB page for both series entitled Unbelievable (note: I will add a hatnote to this page as I assume this got on the nom's radar due to the Netflix miniseries). Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the reason for this getting on the nom's radar then it's a totally inappropriate reaction. We don't delete articles just because something else turns up with the same name - we disambiguate. And the initial tagging of this for speedy deletion as having no context was so far wrong as to cast doubt on the good faith being shown here in this nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy to support such a page move and DAB. matt91486 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now I'm having a hard time trying to convince myself that a variety show with 27 hits on the Mainichi website isn't notable.[28] Plus, the Nikkei defines it as one of the representative works of East Group,[29] and in an article about machine translation and AI supporting Japan's globalization <rolls eyes as professional translator who knows how not true that is> uses it in the opening sentence as though to say "Hey, you know that one show that you probably know?"[30] As an aside, while I don't watch as much variety TV as I probably should and so am not personally familiar with the show, I'm finding it hard to believe that a long-running TV show hosted by the great Beat Takeshi could be non-notable enough not to be able to sustain a substantial article in the future. I wouldn't mind a redirect to Takeshi's article in the meantime, given that the current article basically includes no useful information that isn't also in that article (unsourced and apparently contradictory as it is). AFD is not the place to discuss uncontroversial redirects, but is the place to come for consensus that a topic doesn't merit its own article, which will certainly not be found here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found these sources in the first five pages of a Google News search for "奇跡体験!アンビリバボー", thank you. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk cafe

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

"Sidewalk cafe" is a common vocabulary term and does not warrant an encyclopedia article. This article adds no value to Wikipedia, and makes it difficult for people to take us seriously. Eric ^talk 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No case to answer per WP:BELONG. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is a topic that can be well expanded with different local, national, and cultural perspectives. See Cha chaan teng for example of a similar casual dining establishments but local/cultural specific. Acnetj (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Maybe I didn't explain myself well in my original nomination. "Sidewalk cafe" is a combination of two common vocabulary words to create an unambiguous, self-explanatory term that does not require an encyclopedia article to define it. Eric ^talk 01:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The term may seem unambiguous but sidewalk cafes are generally considered a very desirable feature and often there's a separate planning and administrative considerations around it in many cities. That alone is worthy to keep this page. Acnetj (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well I probably agree that Pavement cafe is worthy of an article, even if it has been named Sidewalk cafe without marking the article's proper name ... seriously, this is an important type of cafe, and richly documented in reliable sources, which is what counts. I've added a mention of France and Italy, cited to The Guardian; the article is absurdly New York-topheavy, and needs internationalising, but it doesn't need deleting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither the original reason for nomination claiming that it is a common vocabulary term or the unsubstantiated claim that it adds no value to Wikipedia etc. seem valid. The additional comment by the nominator claiming that "Sidewalk cafe" is a combination of two common vocabulary words to create an unambiguous, self-explanatory term also does not seem to be a valid reason for deletion. Sidewalk cafe is used as an independent subject in official documents like the New York City Charter and Administrative Code and other similar documents. I'm not sure that WP:BEFORE was properly done. A quick search reveals that it has also received in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources like for example this book or this article by the Chicago Suntimes, Seattle's government, or The city of Austin, etc... Since the article does not violate WP:ISNOT I see no reason to justify deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that people have written about sidewalk cafes and codified them in municipal ordinances does not mean that we need an article to explain what they are. A sidewalk cafe is a cafe that has seating on the sidewalk (or pavement). That's it. People go to Wikipedia to learn more about a topic. Unless they just landed on the planet, they aren't going to learn anything from this article. Well, ok, they might learn from reading this rich tapestry of information, "Popular sidewalk cafe activities", that people write things on the internet without supervision. Eric ^talk 12:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just learnt these are called sidewalk cafes! Would it perhaps be better to merge with Street food? Hintswen Talk | Contribs 12:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Very good. Whoodathunk we'd have that one?! You might enjoy these tasty nuggets: Car door, Death threat, Headlight flashing. Eric ^talk 13:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ Eric, the fact that multiple reliable sources have non-trivial coverage about sidewalk cafes, means that the topic meets our general notability guidelines for inclusion, and since the article does not violate what Wikipedia is not I still see no valid reason for deletion. Do you have any policy based reason that would apply here? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: Regrettably, I know of nothing in our policies that would call for deletion. I just think the article is fluff. It would be nice if someone who can take it seriously would nix the popular activities section. That is embarrassing to us. Thanks to all for weighing in. Eric ^talk 11:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nixed. There may be scope for cited discussion of activities in pavement cafes but it wouldn't look like that sorry section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Eric: I agree, and I also think that the article needs to be further improved. Regards, --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Chiswick Chap and Crystallizedcarbon have it right. The topic is documentable and worthy of inclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources about NYC cafes. I'd love to see more information about France, Spain, and even South America. We have lots of articles that many people consider to be fluff, or even silly, but are as notable as this concept. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the nomination's explanation. By this reasoning, we shouldn't have a firefighter article since 'person who fights fires' is self-explanatory; however, there's a complexity and history not covered by that definition. I will agree article is lacking in depth and a worldwide viewpoint, but I believe this article could be improved and made into a quality article that could inform beyond the basic definition of 'outdoor cafe on sidewalk'.--The Navigators (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have reached the SNOW point where a swift closure would be appropriate, if anyone would care to do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. ST47 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alla Goniodsky

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

~~Unclear the significance of stage designer and puppet maker.--Заслуженный шашист (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 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 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search in the English press turns up next to nothing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ThatMontrealIP. The sources provided are not on the significantly covering the subject. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her name is also spelled Ella Goniodsky in English-language sources. It would be useful to know the Russian language spelling, as she worked in Russia for some time, and the article says that her artworks are in the permanent collections of two museums there, so she may meet WP:ARTIST#4. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to change my !vote if the collections can be confirmed, although tend to think being in a children's museum is not what NARTIST means. Also interesting, when I google the alternate name I come up with some family names that are part to the username that created the article. I guess it would not be surprising if COI were involved here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, per the attribution of the image My_Monster_Made_Of_Sighs.jpg: "I created it in my studio ", the author of the article, is the subject. The article is an autobiography. Vexations (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems like it might also be a family effort. But-- same problems.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that someone works and is actually an artist does not mean that they are notable. Even assuming that all this self-written biographical stuff is true, she has never done anything of particular note. She received a design award from Seattle Times critics, but this is not like winning a Tony award or an Olivier award. And the fact that someone's art has been displayed in a museum does not make one notable, unless the work has received particular notice. I don't think she's even close to notable under any of our sets of criteria. Thank you, Rebecca, for taking a look, but in this case, your research leads to the conclusion that this person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And the fact that someone's art has been displayed in a museum does not make one notable, unless the work has received particular notice I don't think that's quire right. Consider the effort and cost that goes into a museum exhibition and compare that to the requirements of the GNG (basically, two articles in a RS). A museum exhibition can take a professional curator months to prepare and involves a significant number of staff, and often the creation of a catalogue. That means that a professional with relevant domain expertise has come to the conclusion that a subject is somehow worthy of note. We don't make such decisions ourselves, but defer to precisely such experts, who are not all news journalists or art critics. So, I do think that sometimes "the fact that someone's art has been displayed in a museum" does make one notable. This should all be evaluated in context of course. A single work in a group show in a minor museum is not sufficient to establish notability. However, the categorical rejection of museum exhibits as indicators for notability goes to far and contradicts our guidelines at WP:ARTIST, specifically 4(b). In this particular case, I don't see that the work of the subject has been "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Vexations (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Having her work in a museum certainly is a point in her favor, but as Vexations points out it's a minor museum, so it doesn't really meet the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Her work was only tangentially covered in the reviews in the United States. Also fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 2 to delete and 2 to keep. It looks like @Willsome429: has found some additional sources, obviously it would be helpful if those were added to the article. But for the purposes of this debate, there is no consensus either way. ST47 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Sargeant

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

Previously deleted at AFD. CSD G4 was declined because the article is apparently not substantially similar to the previous one. However, the subject still fails WP:GNG (lack of any substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources) and WP:NMOTORSPORT) as neither Formula Renault nor Formula 3 are fully professional. Hug^syrup 12:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 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? 13:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" per WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search turns up content from NBC Sports, Motorsport.com, and Autoweek, which are reputable. I also found additional coverage: [48], [49] and [50]. I didn’t find any independent coverage of his karting career but I believe that even without that he passes GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Willsome429.4meter4 (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If somebody wants to rename it, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurostars (team)

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

Notability concerns for this sports team. The only significant coverage of this team or the "Americus Pro Cup" appears to be from ultiworld.com . power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename after AfD closes: article should be at EuroStars. Have added to the dab page at Eurostar. PamD 08:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable: have found and added article from The Guardian which covers it, and cleaned up the article generally. If kept, needs a proper category such as Category:Women's Ultimate to be created - for now have added it to Category:Women's team sports to get it into "women" hierarchy. PamD 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's been some controversy over its partnership with the American Ultimate Disc League, as evidenced by [51]. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevent content to American Ultimate Disc League. The organization itself lacks sufficent coverage to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overbite (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character. The only real world source is a trivial Top X list. TTN (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Lacking in sources that demonstrate any sort of independent notability, but is already present on the master Decepticon list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons.4meter4 (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on the uncontested argument that the content proposed for a merge is already contained in the history of the target page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works by G. William Domhoff

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

WP is not for posting lists of publications except of the most notable people (like Einstein). A short bibliography (with, say, 5 entries) with the most important selected works (as substantiated by independent sources) can be included in the article on an academic. All academics publish, but we don't need a completely list of publications for every one of them. This list violates WP:ELLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:NOTLINKFARM. There are many references, but they don't discuss Domhoff's work as a whole but only individual works. Therefore this fails WP:GNG and the notability guideline of the WikiProject Bibliographies. Similar bibliographies have been deleted/redirected in the past. I have tried to discuss this issue with the list creator on my talk page, but apparently did not succeed in convincing them. "Works by G. William Domhoff" would be an unlikely search term, so a redirect may not be very useful. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, basically per nom. There is already an article G. William Domhoff and the main works by the author are already discussed there. That's sufficient, and we don't need an extra content fork on the topic. Nsk92 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to G. William Domhoff. Links to book reviews, for example, are helpful information and should be preserved, while individual journal articles and chapters in collections are most likely below the threshold of significance for mentioning. Appropriately trimmed, this material would not impose a serious length burden upon the biography page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and selective merge per above.4meter4 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for those suggesting a selective merge. The actual bibliography content that is suggested to be merged here, already exists in the history log of the target article, G. William Domhoff, see this pre-split version, dated Sept 16, 2019, here [52]. Beyond what was already there in that Sept 16 version, I don't think there is any additional bibliography content in the Works by G. William Domhoff article that needs to be merged. If someone really wants to re-add selective bibliography to G. William Domhoff, they can pull the relevant info from the Sept 16 version, even after Works by G. William Domhoff is deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Mad Dog" Mavridoglou

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

Doesn't satisfy ~~WP:MUSICIAN~~ WP:MUSICBIO. A passing mention in the sole reference isn't going to cut it, and I can't find anything else. The article was created by WP:SPA User:Mavridoglou. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable musician. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I did find reviews for groups the artists has played with, and I did find his name mentioned tangentially in some reviews, the artist has yet to be the main focus of any independent source. He's basically a non-notable back up musician.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Marketing Conference

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

Not very notable conference. Rathfelder (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. An internet search yielded no independent reliable sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Besen Thrasher

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

Non-notable actor who has only appeared in minor roles. Contested prod (and I didn't notify the article creator because s/he hasn't been on Wikipedia in over two years). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:11, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he does have some prominent roles such as The Edison Twins, and My Pet Monster ABC tv series, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept & stubified. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leiden University College The Hague

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

None of the sources currently in the article are WP:RS that are independent from the subject (they are all variations from the school's website). Taewangkorea (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll happily change my opinion if someone has the time to find reliable sources, which I don't think would be very hard, but right now it clearly fails WP:NSCHOOL as per nom. Mujinga (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources, like [53] (in Dutch) and [54], but the article as it stands is too promotional. Perhaps stubbify? TSventon (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Taewangkorea, did you search for additional sources, as required by WP:BEFORE? If so, what did you find? TSventon (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. It's the international arm of a notable university system, so passes WP:NSCHOOL easily with the Dutch language sources provided above. The article is too heavily promotional and should be weeded accordingly.4meter4 (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify per 4meter4. TSventon (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be open to stubbifying it. Taewangkorea (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Daigneault

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

After careful research I have determined the subject fails WP:NHOCKEY, based on the following points. He played 59 AHL games, 31 short of the 90 game mark needed for a goaltender to pass #2. He achieved no preeminent honours in the ECHL to pass #3. Crucially, based on careful research, his junior honours, CHL Memorial Cup All-Star team and Most Outstanding Goaltender, does not pass #4 based on past nominations and subsequent deletions of past entries and winners of these honours. He also played for Canada only in junior level which fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I shall leave it to others, who have the expertise, to determine whether the page fails WP:NHOCKEY. However, topic guidelines are subordinate to WP:GNG and this page clearly fails WP:GNG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unfortunately, nothing about "He used to be an important figure in 2014... A ton of YouTubers have reacted over his death.... Even PewDiePie tweeted about it! " is an actual notability criterium by Wikipedia's particular definition of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon The Hacker

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

Non-notable youtuber, only claim of notability was making troll videos about famous youtubers. Only two of the sources were published before his death five years ago in April, 2014. The only coverage after that was about his death five years later which fails WP:BLP1E Mysticair667537 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 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 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP concerns with this page, along with one source being nearly 1/3 of this article. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? The death was announced in 2019? The 2014 info isn't about his death??? Keep this page! He used to be an important figure in 2014... A ton of YouTubers have reacted over his death.... Even PewDiePie tweeted about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolePoz (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: PolePoz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete - most of the coverage is about his death, there is no signigicant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Collins (ice hockey)

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest North American league he played was the ECHL but has no preeminent honours to pass #3. Also has no honours in EIHL to pass #3 as well and none in college to pass #4. Tay87 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anyone wonders why the years with the most articles on people born in that year are all in the window 1985-1990 look no further than the overabundance of articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: I have been going through that particular list you are referring to in an attempt to go through all the non-notable ones one by one. Tricky process actually, while most of them obviously fail NHOCKEY some of them have ended up passing GNG, NCOLLATH or SPORTBASIC, then I wind up looking like the villian for trying lol. Tay87 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as page creator has moved it into draftspace and thus it's no longer within the purview of AFD to discuss. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo City and Province Public Officials and Notable Figures

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

Should be merged into Iloilo City. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination, which will at the moment be a redirect as it's currently a referenced but empty list. If there are people notable enough for articles, then add a "notable people" list section to Iloilo City. If that section ever gets too large, then it can be split off something like List of people from Los Angeles. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ http://www.saamana.com/dinak-panshikar-honoured-win-chaturang-music-award/

[1] "जल्दी ही पर्दे पर आने वाला है 'नागराज'". News18 India. November 4, 2017.

[2] "आठ आने की कॉमिक्स अब लाख की". BBC News हिंदी.

[3] DelhiAugust 3, India Today Tech New; August 4, 2018UPDATED; Ist, 2018 00:17. "No, Amazon India these are not the Hindi comics we are looking for". India Today. {{cite web}}: |first3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[4] "कॉमिक्स : हर घर में रहते थे ये चाचा, गुदगुदाती हैं इनकी बातें". www.patrika.com.

[5] Srivastav, Vaibhav (March 20, 2017). "Introducing : Bankelal!".

[6] "Tinkle to Doga: 11 amazing comic books every 90s kid will remember reading". September 26, 2017.

[7] "bankelal". Navbharat Times. April 21, 2014.

[Raminder-8] Kaur, Raminder; Eqbal, Saif (2018). Adventure Comics and Youth Cultures in India. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780429784316. Retrieved 13 September 2019.

[9] ttp://www.saamana.com/dinak-panshikar-honoured-win-chaturang-music-award/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]