Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 February	19 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Kisan Dal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There are no references in the article and there doesn't seem to be any news articles about the party. The state the article is in currently, it could be a potential WP:HOAX. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:RS. ==BonkHindrance (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, non notable political party with lack of political success in any major election. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG PenulisHantu (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable entity. Doesn't deserve any article as of now. Not satisfying WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - The9Man | (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Islahi[edit]

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

Non notable Indian Islamist. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot see anything in the Australian context which contributes to notability. While certainly the subject's lecturing in Australia is evident, there does not appear to be any third party reporting of those lectures. Witholding a !vote for the time being in hopeful anticipation from other editors who can provide either an Indian context or Islamic context. Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above article is much improved now. Added many new references including newspapers. Replaced dead links and cleaned up. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOLAR. --BonkHindrance (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SCHOLAR. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete warily though. The best I can find is this. To me it looks as though the subject should be notable, but without being able to find any reliable independent sources, at least in English, and no sign of any editor with an Indian or Islamic context coming forward to offer a sufficient basis for keep, I think delete is the way to go. Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Multiple independent reliable sources mention this subject [1] but I am not sure if these are all about this same person. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct version of the above search. The above search was not matching on the full name. There are not many hits. Aoziwe (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Riachy[edit]

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

no meaningful coverage in any language, the sources that are in the current article woefully fail WP:RS as do the other sources I can find. Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NENT --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete no notability from unreliable sources — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NMODEL PenulisHantu (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't comment on his modeling career, but per IMDB his acting career consists of 2 bit parts. Not notable. PK T(alk) 00:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He played a main role in the latest movie in on netflix called kurup , and as per what i found on him in google he is pretty notable in acting , done many commercials in dubai and globaly & done 2 movies so far one hollywood and the other one is Mollywood Denisbock (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he is also verified on social media platforms and as per what i found he is by the UAE government verified as an actor and was given recently a Golden ID Denisbock (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2022 (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 14:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GameNation World[edit]

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

Non-notable website dedicated to video games, fails WP:WEB. Only WP:PRIMARY sources. Creator GamerCritic might have a possible WP:COI. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find anything noteworthy about this website. Fails WP:WEB. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simmcast[edit]

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

unclear notability for ten years fgnievinski (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. fgnievinski (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unsourced and no evidence of notability. There's no reason to draw this out, either. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like good evidence of notability was unearthed during the course of the discussion. There are some mixed arguments on whether a merger would be appropriate; I think these can be hashed out in a dedicated merge discussion is required, but as far as AFD is concerned there is no consensus for a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dharma Initiative[edit]

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

This seems like another very extensive and well written articl that's pure WP:PLOT. There are some sources out there but they do not seem to go beyond plot summaries, or unreliable fan speculation. The best I see are articles like [2] and I don't think this is the type of souce that is sufficient. Ditto for [3], please note this is effectively just a plot summary with little analysis. Please consider that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) advises "Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details" and this article very clearly fails this. Thoughts? PS. Always open to WP:SOFTDELETE ideas. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative - it's hard to imagine this ever getting outright deleted since the name is a viable search term, but it appears to be WP:ALLPLOT and more fit for FANDOM than Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative per Zxcvbnm. Without having looked for sources myself, I suspect there probably is enough coverage in reliable sources that could result in a standalone article that's not entirely plot summary/fancruft. Obviously that article would look a lot different than the current one and would require a pretty significant overhaul, and whether that could ever happen or not remains to be seen, but for not the redirect seems appropriate. — Hunter Kahn 16:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Striking my original vote because the sources Toughpigs has unearthed make a compelling case. It appears not only that the article could easily be expanded and improved with content beyond in-universe and plot summary, but also that the Dharma Initiative embodies some of the most important themes of the series. And as he says, notability isn't determined by the state of the article but rather by the existence of the sources. It would be great to see someone with an interest in this topic expand this article, and the "Further reading" section that Toughpigs has established will make it that much easier now... — Hunter Kahn 18:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative. There is a lot of information here, but it is probably best suited for Lostpedia. Redirecting is the best option. Rhino131 (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are a number of media-criticism sources that specifically talk about the Dharma Initiative as key to central themes of the show:
- "Research Ethics and the Dharma Initiative" by Deborah R. Barnbaum, in Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons, Blackwell Publishing (2008)
- "Strangers in a Strange Land: Evading Environmental Apocalypse Through Human Choice" by Carlos A. Tairn and Stacey K. Sowards, in Looking for Lost: Critical Essays on the Enigmatic Series, McFarland & Company (2011)
- "Lost Spirituality" in Unlocking the Meaning of Lost: An Unauthorized Guide by Lynette Porter & David Lavery, Sourcebooks (2006)
- Lost: It Only Ends Once by Robert Dougherty, iUniverse (2010)

WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not determine the notability of the subject. According to WP:NEXIST, the fact that reliable sources exist makes the topic notable. People who are concerned about the quality of the writing on this article should make edits to improve it. I'll put these sources on the article in a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article can use these resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Smerge to Mythology of Lost#The DHARMA Initiative. It's an important plot element, yes, but the current article goes into way too much plot (WP:NOTPLOT) to really need a stand-alone article. Better re-start from within the Mythology article per WP:TNT and only go the WP:SPINOUT route when someone is willing to develop it per WP:WAF/the available real-world sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply meets notability. Extensive sources and references in other media. The Dharma Initiative is not part of the Mythology of Lost, so redirecting doesn't make sense. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lost is not just any show and the Dharma Initiative is not just any part of it. And per Toughpigs, there is a lot more that can be said about this particular subject. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There is very little value in the current article, and there is plenty of space in the Mythology article to explore the topic. I don't see any reason it would need to be split out from the above sources. TTN (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anima Pop[edit]

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

Does not look notable Dq209 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dq209 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dq209 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dq209 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - determination made slightly more difficult due to a dress being called Animapop, but 'Anima Pop Band' does not reveal any coverage in reliable sources. Also, article is written from a fan's perspective which is not a reason to delete, but it suggests the article was written by an associated individual or fan, which goes against the idea that the band is notable. Anyway, delete unless sourcing appears. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My research also hasn't shown any mentions, the band clearly fails WP:BAND. Less Unless (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The phrase "Anima Pop" appears to be somewhat common, leading to a lot of false positives when looking for sources. None of the sources that come up, however, appear to be about this band. Rorshacma (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Judge Dredd#Major storylines. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanismo[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this and about 10 more more articles about 'storylines' linked from Template:Judge Dredd are pure WP:PLOT faling WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION Sourced entirely to primary sources, this is just an extended spoiler (plot summary) for a story arc. Any nonplot content is either unreferenced WP:OR or is referenced to primary sources, presumably interviews with artists/publishers that are commonly published in comic books. Here, the source is Judge Dredd Megazine. Bottom line, this seems like more WP:FANCRUFT that belongs on fan wikia like https://judgedredd.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page but sadly not in Wikipedia. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judge Dredd#Major storylines. I agree with nom that this appears to be a glorified plot summary for an on-and-off-again story arc, which can be and already is summarized in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Unnecessary, too-soon spin-out that needs proper sources before another attempt is made. TTN (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Oregon State University. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Award for Literary Achievement[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Only 2 gnews hits. One of which is a press release. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oregon State University, the awarding institution. No evidence in article or searches of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Rider (bus route)[edit]

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

There are some bus routes that are notable, but this clearly isn't one. All coverage found is simply press releases, timetables and service changes, not significant coverage. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Clearly a non notable bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable bus service.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seishun Kōkō 3-nen C-gumi. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayane Konuma[edit]

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

I don't see any significant coverage of the subject. If we had articles for either Chikyu no oto or Seishun Koko 3-nen C-gumi we could redirect to there, but we don't. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:MUSICBIO 2 per the discography. GNG therefore not needed. ミラ P 00:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't solo releases though; they establish the notability of Chikyu no oto, but not necessarily of individual members of the grouup. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: There, I created Seishun Kōkō 3-nen C-gumi, so redirect there. ミラ P 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Miraclepine, with that done I'm fine with redirecting to there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect per Miraclepine. — Hunter Kahn 21:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seishun Kōkō 3-nen C-gumi and redirect it. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aviation Industry Corporation of China. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AVIC Tianshui Aviation Industry[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. The provided citations include a short article and database published by a non-independent source, and trivial coverage in a news publication. I wasn't able to find anything searching online in English. My ability to search in Chinese is cursory, but it is worth reporting that I didn't find anything relevant by searching for its title on Google. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although, I'm hesitant to make a judgement about the company since I'm not a speaker of Chinese. To bad it doesn't have a Chinese Wikipedia page that we could mine sources from. The lack of one makes me think all the more it's not notable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aviation Industry Corporation of China - the parent company, which is notable.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Sullivan-Beckers[edit]

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

All coverage of the subject is in relation to a viral news story about her co-discovering a species of insect with her daughter (WP:BLP1E). She's had a few moderately well-cited publications but it doesn't seem that she meets WP:NACADEMIC on their strengths. So, unless discovering a single insect species is enough to meet NACADEMIC, I don't think that we have a case for notability here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to say keep because the discovery of a new species isn't just one event, it's a scientific achievement. Science lasts longer than going viral. The fact that multiple news outlets picked up on it gives her general notability. ⌚️ (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Assistant professor position doesn't make her notable, current number of publications of hers and their citations don't make her notable, but the media attention surround the new species probably just about does. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two above rationales. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She meets GNG as scientific discoveries are not merely news events, and I believe she also meets criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" re: her discovery of a new species. Note that "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." She may also satisfy criterion 1 of NACADEMIC "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question". Besides this, her published works go beyond run-of-the-mill scholarly works, one of the more significant might be her chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology. Altogether, this seems to be a case for keeping. IphisOfCrete (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the argument above about Criterion 7 and the Oxford Handbook is valid, but my impression was that discovering new species is the bread and butter of entomology, and I'm skeptical that it's as significant as editors are making it out to be. FWIW, the paper that actually publishes the discovery of the insect in question is [4], which does not appear to have accrued any citations yet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if she was a random person it would be a one event circumstance. But this is her field, that's why it's an act of notability even in serendipity. ⌚️ (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"my impression was that discovering new species is the bread and butter of entomology" Discovery certainly is the bread and butter of science in general, I'm not sure that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should start excluding entries on that basis. After all, it's WP:NOTPAPER.IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the discovery of the treehopper makes her pass WP:NACADEMIC. Also just wanted to note that a similar discussion took place not too long ago in another AfD. Of course, each AfD is independent, but I thought it might be useful to link it here. Achaea (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From reading through that AfD, despite the chorus of people insisting that the discovery of a single species is notable, I'm only more convinced that that position is mistaken. Virtually every researcher working in entomology or herpetology is going to rack up multiple-to-dozens of discoveries of species over their career; thousands of new species are discovered every year. If this is where we're setting the bar for NACADEMIC in these fields, it is way, way lower than the standards that we hold for virtually any other research discipline, as this standard is only marginally harder to meet than "publish a single paper in a peer reviewed journal". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, will this development of apparent consensus, someone being wikinotable for discovering one species, (although probably also needing broader consensus from relevant projects?) require adjustment to the relevant notability guidelines (and possibly a footnote added to the species common outcome)? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think discovering one rare species will require a change to the prof test, because "significant discovery" is somewhat subjective. Notwithstanding, this particular discovery has garnered significant coverage, both academic and popular. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC criterium #1. gidonb (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bindu (2009 film)[edit]

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

This film has no notable sources - claim to notability is weak to nonexistent --Danielklein (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) piece here is significant coverage in a reliable source but more is needed. Reliable national newspaper coverage relates to criteria 1 of WP:NFILM] and your attempt to discount newspaper coverage as non-notable is completely at odds with established policy at WP:GNG and WikiProject Film, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Also coverage at Sunday Observer Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the coverage is reliable, however, it is not significant since all films receive such attention at the time of their release. You need to show that there has been significant coverage once the film is no longer a current release. --Danielklein (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, reviews at the time of release are sufficient to pass criteria 1 of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, not all films are reviewed in national newspapers especially independent films so national reviews are selective for example the Hindu only reviews a small sample of the many Indian films released each week. Also, WP:Notability is not temporary also applies although it is good to have later coverage it is not essential, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Also i've only gone for weak keep because these two pieces are not actual reviews they are preview stories before the cinema release and so what is needed are two actual reviews of the film in reliable sources, although these two sources do count towards WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have found this source here which suggests the film broke box office records when it was released, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, that was an opinion piece written by a reader of the Daily News. The only attribution I can find for it is an email address. Bindu has only a passing mention, which the guidelines clearly say is not enough to establish notability. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" If "[...] the ‘family film’ Bindu smashing all-time records." can be verified (and also which records were smashed? It's not clear) then this film is on its way to being notable. I see nothing in WP:GNG that a single review published around the time of film's release is significant coverage. See WP:NFO. "[...] has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics", "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release", etc. "In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria." If Bindu is as notable as you claim, it shouldn't be as hard as this to find evidence of notability. However, that by itself is not enough to prove that it's not notable, which is why we're going through this process. WP:NRV "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". You are correct that notability is not temporary, however, short-term interest does not establish notability. --Danielklein (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- it's a column by a journalist, note the comment this is not a film review column Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Atlantic306 has done a pretty good job finding sources. Foreign articles like this are always hard to evaluate because it is hard to research as an English speaker. That it was directed by what appears to be one of the top directors in Sri Lanka, in combination with the hints we get in English language sources, makes me feel that this probably is notable. All statements currently in the article are verifiably cited, so no reasons to delete based on quality. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could list a hundred sources without establishing notability if they're the wrong sources. I've searched for both "Bindu" and "බිංදු" (and "බින්දු" which appears to be a misspelling) and found nothing notable relating to the film. There are hits from YouTube, Facebook, Blogspot, etc. but nothing usable on Wikipedia. The issue is not with verifiability (which this film passes with flying colours), but with notability. It doesn't matter what the quality of the article is. Low quality articles can be rewritten, and high quality articles on non-notable subjects should be deleted. All the references so far are from the time the film was released, indicating only short-term interest and promotional activity, or from lists of Sri Lankan films which include all Sri Lankan films, whether notable or not. I'm happy to review any Sinhala sources found, as I have already done for the existing Sinhala reference (from Sarasaviya) which is only a list of the cast and crew. We need more than just hints. We need concrete evidence that this film is notable if it is to be kept. --Danielklein (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Sources from the release time are acceptable for GNG, for example there are many film articles about upcoming films particularly Hollywood films that only have references from before the film's release, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Antrocent that these topics get less media coverage in Englis language sources. Based on the findings by Atlantic306, the article should be kept. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. I see the merge suggestion but the total lack of sourcing speaks against it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ODers[edit]

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

Complete lack of reliable sources and a failure to demonstrate notability. Content is minimal; I don't think this warrants either a merge or a redirect to Cybersex, so I'm putting it forward for outright deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have a section Internet_relationship#Online_gaming that seems an appropriate target for a merge of a one sentence definition and a redirect. There is a techjunkie article that discusses the practice and why it is a problem for "kid-friendly" MMOs like Roblox. That might be enough verifiability for a one-sentence merge. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable, No reliable sources!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Dthomsen8. From Analog Horror, (Communicate) 21:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Profs[edit]

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

Promotional appearing article for a company that seems to fail GNG. Not notable. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The article passes WP:GNG, and the organization has received notable awards. --BonkHindrance (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article with no WP:RS. Dorama285 00:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything in the article or elsewhere that is remotely sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, run-of-the-mill minor start-up. Renata (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are multiple independent reliable sources present which talks about this is start-up[5],[6], [7], [8] etc. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 New York City Subway shooting[edit]

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

Although I am the original page creator, I acknowledge that I did not know as much about Wikipedia policy when I originally created it, as I do now. This article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Other than having been mentioned in the 2019 State of the Union Address, there is nothing particularly notable about it. This is a rather run of the mill gang shooting. A Google search limited to results from the last six months brought up nothing immediately related to the subject of the article. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original nom (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Queens subway shooting) was influenced by WP:RECENT mentions in the 2019 SOTU intended to scare-monger and a now-blocked editor who harangued everyone who argued a delete vote!. I have heard nothing about the trial and in the intervening twelve months, so like I said 'in 6-12 months', no new WP:N (outside this story where an gang attempt at revenge failed which is pretty much WP:ROUTINE as the Daily News doesn't even mention the SOTU furor) has been built. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a local gang-related shooting and NEWS story that received heightened attention because, since it happened 2 days before the SOTU speech, the President chose to use it for political purposes. Therefore the incident is useful as a mention in the 2019 State of the Union address and the MS-13 articles, where it currently appears, but it doesn't rise to the level of a noteworthy historical event befitting an encyclopedia article. Tellingly, it is not even listed in Crime in New York City. As others have noted, there has been no WP:LASTING coverage. StonyBrook (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like I said at the last nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Queens subway shooting, While tragic, this appears to be a run-of-the-mill gang shooting. It is probably not notable as a standalone article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. It still holds true today. The only significant coverage it got was that president Trump mentioned it. Otherwise, it was a run of the mill crime. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keean Bexte[edit]

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

No reliable sources cited; doesn't appear to be encyclopedically notable per WP:NBIO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:JOURNALIST. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains references from three Swedish online papers. --Fa alk (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Documented racist hate sites such as Samhällsnytt are the definition of non-reliable sources. This study from the Swedish Defence University explains and documents its status as a far-right anti-immigrant propaganda platform. You are welcome to open a discussion at the WP:RSN if you believe the site should be viewed as reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for journalists is not the ability to use their own primary source staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or even their own published work for those employers, as verification that the person exists — it is the ability to show that they have been the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. None of the sources present here represent what's required, and neither do any of the sources that were stripped from the article — even if we were to overlook the fact that the Swedish sources were mostly alt-right blogs and not real or reliable media, Keean Bexte still was not the subject of those sources, he was merely a name that got briefly mentioned in coverage whose core subject was somebody else. That's not the kind of sourcing we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1956 Crane Corporation Lockheed PV-1 crash[edit]

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

Doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy, a crash of non-commercial aircraft are rarely notable and not that uncommon. It really needs to kill somebody with a wikipedia article or hit something of note or cause a significant change in rules. Prod removed with a claim that the article is referenced, being referenced doesnt make it notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Searching for this is a real pain but there's no evidence that this was more than, well, akin to a fatal traffic accident. Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH --BonkHindrance (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:AIRCRASH, which suggests that crashes of this type might be included in lists within articles on the (civil) aircraft or the airline. We don't have an article on the airline, and the aircraft is a converted military plane so there's no list there either. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know how often the creator of an article actually agrees with a potential deletion to the point they vote in favor of it, it's certainly my first time, but I'm struggling to find anything I can use to try to beef up noteworthiness. I didn't even know about it until I stumbled upon the final report while looking for an update on a more recent aircraft crash in the area. Chalk this one up to the good idea fairy giving me bad advice. RGFI (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Land Committees[edit]

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

Article is largely based on non-RS Chavista outlet Venezuelanalysis. Multiple other sources are broken links. Icing on the cake is that the lead describes the committees as based on "participatory democracy." Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any POV or hoax issues here. Even if some sources are not reliable, the topic is still notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NEXIST. A Google search shows widespread coverage in reputable sources. --BonkHindrance (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I can’t see anything wrong with it. If the article us somehow biased or unreliable it should be corrected by editing. We are definitely not in WP:TNT territory. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, not only based on a WP:Deprecated source but also these are not notable comittees.--MaoGo (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--89.206.114.25 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever problems this article may have, notability is not one of them:

Garcia Guadilla, Maria Pilar (2011). "Urban Land Committees: Co-optation, Autonomy, and Protagonism". In Smilde, David; Hellinger, Daniel (eds.). Venezuela's Bolivarian democracy : participation, politics, and culture under Chávez. Duke University Press.

with 14 citations noted on ResearchGate. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG has been covered/discussed in articles/books ie. ""We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For": The Feminization of Resistance in Venezuela" in Latin American Perspectives, "5 de Julio Pioneer Camp, Urban Land Committees" in Venezuela Speaks!: Voices From the Grassroots, "Urban Land Committees: Co-optation, Autonomy, and Protagonism" in Venezuela's Bolivarian Democracy: Participation, Politics, and Culture Under Chávez. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Jehangir[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Via google search it does not seem to me that he will pass those. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL due to lack of state or national election victories. The post of spokesperson of the state wing of the party is not a notable post and has been discussed in earlier AfDs as non notable. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL PenulisHantu (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has been tagged with a template questioning its notablity since August 2014. Non-notable journalist. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Being a spokes person at the state level or belonging a known family is not enough to warrant notability. - The9Man | (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Mohammad Meer[edit]

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

A losing candidate in election. The article feels WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL due to lack of state or national election victories. I also agree with the nom. The post of the state wing of the party is not a notable post and has been discussed in earlier AfDs as non notable.--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Losing candidate in an election and also serving as the vice president of a state party is not enough to warrant notability. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:GNG. Does not appear to qualify for notability by any metric. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wangman Lowangcha[edit]

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

A losing candidate in election. And being the vice president of a party's state unit is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Even via google search it doesn't seem to me that he will pass WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL due to lack of state or national election victories. I also agree with the nom. My own searches on the subject brought up nothing that merits an article for him.--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Lowangcha is a non-notable politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveroad[edit]

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

It looks like a promotional article, I fail to see the company's relevance. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sannita, The article was written from neutral point of view. Moreover, you can check earlier versions of this page, if it's better - we could recover it. --Moana122 (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, most of company pages looks like promotional but but in fact they only contain information. If we have a discussion, then I will listen to your suggestions for improving this article and together we can make this article and Wikipedia as a whole better. --Moana122 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC
Delete per WP:ORGSIG. @Moana122: this organization has not received widespread, significant coverage from reputable sources. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is sourced to https://www.cleveroad.com and https://www.producthunt.com/posts/app-cost-calculator which is also by Cleveroad. There are no independent, reliable sources. It's not a reason to delete per se, but I will note attempts by the creator of the article to insert mentions of cleaveroad in articles like User experience design [9] and Python (programming language) [10]. Even if the content were entirely neutral and factual, there is intent is to promote the company. Vexations (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, not all sources remain in the current version of the article. These are all the sources that have been used:

git-awards.com, clutch.co, clutch.co, clutch.co, github.com, nucc.no, cleveroad.com, cleveroad.com, einpresswire.com, goodfirms.co,

itfirms.co, producthunt.com and topdevelopers.co None of this adds up to significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BonkHindrance I disagree with you. In the category Software companies in Ukraine other companies with a large number of advertising content are listed. (Eleks NIX) Companies use the same sources because they are trusted and respected in software development.--Moana122 (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations About the sources - I researched that company has new mentions on forbes.com, iaop.org and others. But the community of Wikipedia drove me to a standstill. Due to the fact that only I add information to the article, this is considered a violation. And if I add something now, it will again serve against me. Due to the fact that in the English version of Wikipedia, only everything is deleted and does not help in any way with improving the content, I stopped writing articles. In Ukrainian Wikipedia, the community is more friendly and helps with content, and therefore I continue to supplement the online encyclopedia there. On the English Wiki, I don’t feel support. Are there any volunteers willing to help with the Cleveroad page? --Moana122 (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, If you have sources that meet our requirements, as explained in great detail at WP:NCORP then you should add them. Regarding forbes, please see WP:FORBES and the section on Forbes.com contributors. iaop.org is not an independent, reliable source that can be used to established that Cleveroad is notable. If you are an employee of Cleveroad, or have been paid to edit their article, read WP:PAID and make the mandatory declaration. If you have no conflict of interest, reply to the message on your talk page, and say so. Vexations (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, thank you for your reply. Here users gave advice not to make any changes "until I have clarified that I do not have a conflict of interest". That is why they drove me into a dead end, putting the article at the same time in 2 categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moana122 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, I don't see why you would be at a dead end. If you have no conflict of interest, simply say so. If you do, make the mandatory declaration. Vexations (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations,I'm new to that and I thought that only after I am found not guilty can I edit the article. So then I start editing.

Delete - There's an older version of the article that does have more citations (I'm the one that removed them), but they are from clutch.co, which is a 'pay to be listed on our web site and we'll give you an award' style outfit, and git-awards.com, which is just an automated list that ranks by activity level, and a few other equally unselective and nonnotable 'awards.' Neither helps the case for notability, so the sources just aren't there for this company. - MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, if you are interested in trusted sources, you could help make this page better but not only criticize it and deleting content. clutch.co has sponsored list and NOT sponsored. Please, check that those links were not sponsored. git-awards.com shows the statistics and Cleveroad contributions are highly appreciated in developers' community GitHub. --Moana122 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, have you read WP:NCORP? The clutch sources are press releases. There is no way in which clutch is a suitable source. Also, please trust that some of us (I'm speaking for myself here) have actually looked for sources and found none that comply with NCORP. Absence of sources is not evidence of lack of effort; I don't think I need to list all the unusable sources I found and then go through them and point out why they're not good enough. I've done due diligence. If you have good sources, show us what they are. Vexations (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The three refs do not establish notability. The previously deleted content with refs was to minor awards, so ditto. Listing clients does not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The research on trusted sources was done and check the latest version of the article. The company has a great impact on programmers community, GitHub statistics it proves. Even though the company is quite young, it contributes to the social life of student programmers. This page is worthy of Wikipedia, like other similar articles about software development companies - Nix, Mirasoft, Nektony, Aricent, HYS Enterprise, etc. Hope that the decision will be fair. --Moana122 (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moana122, I have nominated Nix, Mirasoft and HYS Enterprise for deletion as well. They are indeed not all that different from Cleveroad. I'm not sure yet about Aricent; there's better coverage for that topic. Vexations (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, I have listed these companies so that you can see the difference between a page that is of value to Wikipedia and pages that link only to your own site or pages that are in the Web Archive. And in general, I don’t understand why the Cleveroad page caused such a stormy condemnation, and nobody cares about those pages and nobody discusses them. --Moana122 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fauji Foundation College, Rawalpindi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Already a mess, delete per WP:TNT. Störm (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Störm. Dorama285 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another private instution with no significant coverage. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Metropolitan Hockey League[edit]

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

Youth sports league which does not assert or meet any notability. Any coverage is routine, and not by any independent third party. Flibirigit (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Art Magazine[edit]

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

Notablity fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From https://www.globalartmagazine.com/en/aboutus.html: "You are an artist and want to secede from the anonymity to enter the public sphere of a large international audience? Or you are part of an art institution that has an interest to network itself more global? Our forum enables new possibilities of contact and communication between galleries, museums, art organizations and freelance artists, beyond all national boundaries." Global Art Magazine is published by a "consortium" https://pashminart-consortia.com/about-us/, that is trying to promote Davood Roostaei. Vexations (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thin content, verging on the promotional. Doesn't meet GNG I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, non-notable. Dorama285 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable magazine. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis the inline citations are not about Global Art Magazine, so it seems to be entirely a WP:COATRACK. I can't find any independent reliable sources about Global Art Magazine online. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep are classic arguments to avoid, and there was insufficient consensus for redirecting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horton family[edit]

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

Fictional minutiae better suited for a fanwiki, unsourced and (per talk) with accuracy problems. List of Days of Our Lives characters can hold the same information if so desired (by re-ordering by family), no need for 5 extra family articles to get that information across.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (most of them tagged since 2012):

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

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

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

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

– sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and encyclopedic enough. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Television fancruft that belongs on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Days of Our Lives cast members. All the articles are completely unsourced, failing WP:GNG and WP:PLOT, and the list article already covers any navigational purpose articles like these might have. There is nothing to merge, but they seem like possible search terms. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE !! ... It was the only place or BEST place for me to find the background info on the Horton family in Days of Our Lives. (not sure if I'm putting my request/protest against the article deletion in the proper place or not ... if I'm in the wrong place, I'm sorry ... I could not figure out where to put my objection) ... anyway, PLEASE DON'T DELETE this article !! (Thank you for your consideration of my opinion)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:A304:4400:E431:5086:4E93:4E (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect all - It doesn't really seem like they're relevant search terms, so deletion seems better. They do not establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incruit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable company. Was deleted by @The Bushranger: after discussion at AfD in 2013, then restored by @King of Hearts: citing WP:REFUND after an appeal by the company's PR Manager at WP:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_83#incruit, which was rejected on that discussion page. No substantial change has been made to the article since then, and the one source cited no longer verifies. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not really a startup. I think it might be notable in South Korea, but this is quite iffy. Google results are mostly in Korean so it would be best if someone with knowledge of Korean could take a look at this. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a bit strange that this was reinstated without WP:DRV, but nowadays the low participation in the 2013 AfD may have meant that AfD deletion would have been accompanied by a note about potential WP:REFUND. Some sources for basic verification can be found, for example it is one of five Korean sites listed in a "World-wide workforce I: An anatomy of recruiting practices around the globe" book, but that mention does no more than confirm this to be a company going about its business. The article text may be claiming primacy in online job listings (the prose is not entirely clear), but that is unsubstantiated: if it had wider influence I would expect to find WP:RS discussion. Nor is notability inherited by providing services to well-known firms. In sum, I see no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and Korean wiki page is also a stub with little demonstration of notability. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin close) Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popstar Nima[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:PROMO along with companion page Frontier Cafe. No sources, much less WP:RS. From Google & the description doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article was just created a few hours ago. Is waiting on the AfD an option? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 04:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasah as-Sawlatiyah[edit]

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

No scope to keep, because unable to pass even the WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has not provided any valid rationale for deletion. The ar.wiki article has three sources. If they’re not good enough the nominator should explain why. Mccapra (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Schools need to pass the GNGs same as everyone else, and I'm not seeing a lot of sources. However I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt because a) the ar.wiki has some sources, b) if this really is a 100+ year old school then notability is likely and c) because the nominator has not actually advanced a proper, policy-based argument for deletion. Hug^syrup 11:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, but sources must be added. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability is proven by an abundance of sources in Arabic, English, and other languages. When searching for non-Arabic sources alternate spellings should be considered:
- English: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Arabic: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Axiom292 (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Urdu sources have been examined for us to be certain it’s not notable? Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But even that unable to pass the WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 14:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has had twelve years of life with nearly no edits and no readily available references. Dorama285 02:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find anything in Urdu either. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Humphrey[edit]

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

Upon finding this article while doing BLP fixes, I discovered it impossible to find a source that states where this person was born... in fact, I found it impossible to find reliable sources even discussing this person. As such, I think it very likely this person fails our notability guidelines entirely. If anyone knows of sources I cannot find, please feel free to add them. But, as it stands, I think this should not be retained. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article appears to be an attempted promotion. He does have some voice acting credits, such as the old Sonic Hedgehog, but that is only noted in typical industry listings and fan sites, with no significant media coverage. His music group is nowhere close to notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~but with a recommendation that this article needs significant improvement~~. Although the article appears to have a number of sources, most of them appear to have just been copied from the sources for article about Bharatiya Janata Party, the party's national organization, and don't specifically relate to this state unit. That said, however, the BJP is the largest political party in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and thus leads the state government, in a state with more than 60 million people. A state party like that pretty much has to be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Thanks for your comment. Via Google search it does not seem to me that the subject will pass WP:BRANCH. I think you will change your stand!S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soman has already made significant improvement to this article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unlike what Metropolitan90 stated, this is not a separate state party but a geographical wing of Bharatiya Janata Party and clearly WP:BRANCH should be applicable and the article does not pass its criteria to merit a standalone article. There is a lack of sources that merit an independent article. Most sources are passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage of political events. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't merit a standalone article per WP:BRANCH, relevant information should be merged with Bharatiya Janata Party. Several major parties have substantial presence multiple states but it is does not merit individual articles for each state and is not the standard practice either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, clearly the BJP Karnataka branch passes any GNG criteria easily. I think the question here is, in a (somewhat...) federal country like India, wouldn't there be a good potential for having articles on political parties by state level, as is the case with the 2 major U.S. parties (see Alaska Democratic Party or California Republican Party) or a number of Spanish parties? --Soman (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India is not biparty system like US, so the comparison is not apple to apple. In any case the problem is lack of sources covering it independently in great detail. It can be kept if there are sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it would be possible to dig up 100+ good references on BJP in Karnataka. Lack of sources isn't the problem. --Soman (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also provincial articles on all major parties in Canada, such as New Democratic Party of Manitoba or in Australia (such as Category:Australian Labor Party state branches). (Yes, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, that's not the point i'm trying to make) --Soman (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you and just 5-10 good ones of those hundreds if presented here could convince the AfD. But WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and WP:OSE will not do. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib and DBigXray, the article is now expanded. Whilst the article is far from finished, it has more material than before. --Soman (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the Karnataka BJP did not pass WP:BRANCH as it seems it enlights coverage of contesting election of BJP in Karnataka, their . Some are BJPs activities for Karnataka. The third one migh cover some good work for the BJP article. But I think not enough for WP:BRANCH. The fourth one is very good work for Karnataka CM BSY not for Karnataka BJP. Some are sworning someone as serving as president, vice president etc. (I don't want to make it very long like previous discussion of Mr. X. I hope Soman and DBigXray will understand I am talking about which AfD.) In short words Karnataka BJP gets coverage for being the state unit of BJP. The coverages, scholar works are not enough for passing WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a significant party of government, this article is undoubtedly about a notable topic. It's rival, the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee also has an article. --RaviC (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: Thanks for your comment. Let the rival of X is Y. Y has an article. But, X can not claim that Y has an article but, why I don't have? And notability WP:NOTINHERITED. A thing should pass our notability criteria differently.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, are you saying BJP Karnataka state unit lacks notability? It is the governing party of a state with 60 million inhabitants, and polled over 13 million votes in the 2018 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election. --Soman (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soman In India, we can see losing MP even MLA candidates got a huge number of votes which amount are enough for becoming the president like Iceland, Maldives, Palau and so on. But their (losing candidate) articles were not kept for getting huge amount of votes. The subject (Karnataka BJP) gets some coverage for being a state wing of BJP. These are not enough for passing WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are not reading WP:BRANCH correctly. WP:BRANCH is intended to avoid us having an article on every local branch of university fraternities, to avoid Wikipedia becoming a yellow pages. For politics there is an established practice on Wikipedia that regional bodies of major political parties may have separate articles, see Category:Democratic Party (United States) by state, National Party of Australia – Queensland, CDU Baden-Württemberg, Socialist Party of the Canaries, etc.. --Soman (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not compare those with India. Their political system is Two-party system. India's political system is not like that. In Punjab a Congress candidate can hope for his/her win. But, now-a-days in West Bengal, a Congress candidate usually thinks about his/her vote percentage so that he/she can save his/her security deposit. Same to BJP. In Uttar Pradesh BJP candidiate can hope for his win but in Tamil Nadu a BJP candidate usually thinks about his/her vote percentage so that he/she can save his/her security deposit. As per WP:BRANCH the sources presented here are not enough for passing WP:BRANCH (the reason I have mentioned earlier).S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M., I understand you are saying that in India, a political party can be very prominent at the nationwide level while being a minor or insignificant party in certain states. I believe that. However, I don't know what that has to do with BJP in Karnataka. The BJP is the largest party in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. If you want to say that we should not have an article about Bharatiya Janata Party, Tamil Nadu because the BJP has no seats in the legislative assembly there, I can understand that. But for Karnataka, I don't understand that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90 Actually, the article fails WP:BRANCH. It has coverages for becoming the state wing of BJP, where the coverage of BJP is the main point, not Karnataka BJP. Yes, in Karnaraka BJP is in the CM seat. So, I am saying here the article will not pass our notability criteria per WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DBigXray and Tayi Arajakate. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case it was not clear by the comments earlier, I'd like to leave a Keep vote as well. --Soman (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Subject fails WP:BRANCH, WP:GNG and WP:ORG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop Switchblade[edit]

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

Article has no sources independent of the patent applications which verify notability BilCat (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete (not an aircraft, just a patent) and move material to a relevant article, like Variable-sweep wing--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~merge and disambiguate~~ redirect to Northrop Grumman Switchblade: The article lacks citations for any actual research. If these were present then Northrop's patronage would make it notable, per WP:NAIR. No doubt such research was conducted, but I can find no WP:RS documenting it. That may be because the patent makes no mention of "switchblade", so this article would then be wrongly-named. I suspect that the Internet meme merchants have confused it with the Northrop Grumman Switchblade oblique wing project. ~~I agree with Marc Lacoste that the content should be merged into Variable-sweep wing and I would add to that the Forward-swept wing. But I think this page should be kept as a disambig page.~~ Some readers will be coming here looking for the patented Internet meme, let the redirect inform them. If RS is ever uncovered, then a new page with better content can be created under a more appropriate title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC) -- Updated 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references cited means it fails WP:GNG. The patent linked to makes no mention of "Switchblade" nor is there any indication that the company intends to build this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles are to have references, which this article doesn't have.Catfurball (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see that this is a pretty old article; there has been plenty of time for reliable sources to exist if it was in any way notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Li[edit]

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

no actual accomplishment of her own- the content is name dropping with brands she advertises on her social media. This seems a matter of both notability and promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being the founder of a company and the recipient of the Red Dot Award seems to merit more success and notability than "advertisements on her social media." -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She started a graphic design/advertising agency five years ago, and from the current sources, appears to be getting attention in her field. The nominator says that she advertises brands on "her social media", which I think is a misreading. Planning social media campaigns for major brands is not the same thing as posting pictures on your own social media account; it's an actual job. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have any of the Keep vote!s actually read the refs. There is a self indulgent fawning piece from the Hong Kong Tatler which is actually just a perfume advert, another fawning interview from Prestige, another society piece from Elle Hong Kong, a puff piece from generationT, I couldn't find the relevant source in Press Reader but my guess is it isn't a serious piece of commentary. The yahoo ref simply links back to the Elle puff piece and another is a micro biog care of the Hong Kong Tatler (again). Then we have just giving. Why do rich young entrepreneurs think that by giving away some money will make them notable, it doesn't. This is all a marketing puff piece for a rich young woman who may well shine in the social lime-light of Hong Kong but whose notability credentials stack up to nothing here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG - the articles are press releases or otherwise similar puff pieces. Obviously notability is not inherited from her parents or where she went to school, or the companies she is involved with. The JustGiving link is just a fundraising link. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity piece and advertising, and fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. The sources don't demonstrate any notability. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and does not meet WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Cheri[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: none of the current references constitute significant coverage in external sources. I looked for new ones and found nothing useful. Porn industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also did a decent search and found nada. There's nothing to suggest that sources might exist elsewhere. This is firmly one for the delete pile. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The awards look notable and she does show up on some searches, but none of the sources are RS. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that none of the sources are RS is the exact notability problem. The award won (note that it is singular) would not have passed the "well-known and significant industry award" test of the now-deprecated PORNBIO. Also, nominations and scene-related wins didn't count under PORNBIO, and they especially don't count now. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT - no detectable fan base, no significant roles, no unique contributions.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure of WP:BASIC and WP:ENT with no independent reliable source coverage whatsoever. Would not have passed the now-superseded PORNBIO SNG as I stated above. Not even the semi-reliable porn trade mags have anything substantial to say about this performer. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roman Griffin Davis. RL0919 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Roman Griffin Davis[edit]

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

I really don't think we need a separate list-of article about an actor that has only won one major award and one local award.

This should be a section in Roman Griffin Davis. See WP:LISTCRUFT. Toddst1 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Griffin Davis per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Griffin Davis - Really no need for a separate article.– BrandonXLF (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge God people, you don't need to automatically create new articles for everything just because other much larger topics have similar articles. Of course this should be covered in the stub of a main article rather than split out. Reywas92^Talk 06:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and close this out. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roman Griffin Davis. Vorbee (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Roman Griffin Davis. Absolutely no reason for a content fork here. Hog Farm (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bye. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felecia[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: none of the current references constitute significant coverage in external sources. I looked for new ones and found nothing useful. Porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did a brief search and couldn't find anything to demonstrate notability. This is one of the cases where I wouldn't be surprised if sources exist to demonstrate notability given that half her career was in the pre-digital area and the generic stage name makes searching for sources extremely difficult. However, those sort of cases really need someone to actually have access to those sources when they write the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim to notability was the now-superseded WP:PORNBIO SNG. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The article lacks reliable source references, and searches for independent RS coverage yield only cast listings and other trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Center for Public Policy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NGO. coverage is almost all local. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely cited organization including in the NYT; while most links are mentions to its issue statements, more significant coverage as an organization is at [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. While these sources are also based in Portland, I think in this case they have a reach that is regional or statewide per WP:AUD since the topic is statewide and these are major sources for statewide news. Reywas92^Talk 06:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Almost all local" coverage? The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly the consensus is to keep at least an article about the UK declaration. Moving (and perhaps splitting) the article can be resolved outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British and French declaration of war on Germany[edit]

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

Britain and France did not declare war jointly. The reference used in the lead does not support the claim that it is used for. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to United Kingdom declaration of war on Germany (1939)—that's what the article is mostly about. France declaration of war on Germany (1939) occurred on the same day, but was a separate event. The British and French articles will have different information on national/internal politics leading up to the war. b uidhe 16:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That seems like a reasonable idea. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. This BBC article about the declaration of war says Chamberlain broadcast at 11:15, after the expiry of Britain's 11:00 deadline, and then goes on to say France presented her ultimatum at 12:30, to expire at 17:00, sometime after Chamberlain's broadcast. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both countries declared war the same day, although not exactly jointly. The sources combine the declarations of the two countries, for instance History.com, BBC, The Holocaust Museum, United Press and The Atlantic magazine. I think it's suitable for Wikipedia to combine the two declarations. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title implies there was a single declaration of war encompassing both France and Britain, which is obviously false. Those aren't terribly good sources, and the BBC one, as I pointed out, makes it clear that the French declaration cannot have coincided with the British. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to United Kingdom declaration of war on Germany (1939). Notable topic but should have a title more accurately reflecting the content.--Staberinde (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should either be moved, as suggested by Buidhe, to narrow its scope to the UK alone or else to a plural title to clearly indicate that there were two separate declarations of war. I do think treating them together in a single article is admissible. Srnec (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to United Kingdom declaration of war on Germany (1939) On the assumption that is what the article is supposed to be about. Actually, it says very little about what a reader would expect to find in the article, except for the text of the declaration, which would be better in Wikisource. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to British declaration of war on Germany (1939) and purge of mentions of France. I am not sure of the precise events over the French declaration, but Chamberlain did not make one for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lidija Cvetkovic[edit]

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

fails WP:AUTHOR. 1 gnews minor hit. I don't see winning one award gets her across the line. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of multiple awards and shortlisted for others. Multiple literary reviews. Anthologised. For example, a sample:
- [18], [19]
  - multiple reviews in reliable publications
  - short listed for two state NSW Government literary awards
  - winner of a QLD state award
- https://www.poetryinternational.org/pi/poet/6156/Lidija-Cvetkovic/en/tile
- https://www.poetryinternational.org/pi/poet/6575/Editorial-February-2006/en/tile
- anthologised in New Music: An Anthology of Contemporary Australian Poetry by John Leanoard, review by Comerford, D. (2002). Australia's New Poetries. Antipodes, 16(2), 201-204. Retrieved February 18, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41957239 [20] 203, 204
- [21] [22]
  - winner of Australian Poetry Festival 1999

Seems notable to me. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CONTN. --BonkHindrance (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nomination statement may have missed the mark, but that doesn't invalidate the many valid and pertinent arguments for deletion, including asserted GNG failure by way of WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, among other sourcing faults. No pressing reason to ignore consensus on procedural grounds. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano Visayan State[edit]

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

~~Nothing but a blatant hoax.~~ Promotional content. hueman1 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Umm, could you please give evidence establishing anything is a hoax here?
Speedy Keep [was "Keep", probably, because I am surmising the deletion nominator simply believes a proposal cannot be Wikipedia-notable, which is simply false. Note we have numerous articles, supported by sources, on specific proposals and collections of them, such as Partition and secession in California. --Doncram (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Partition/secession in California has been discussed by numerous reliable sources. This is merely a state proposed by one person in an academic essay and nobody has written about his proposal. You should base your keep/delete comment on the subject of the article itself - not on what you perceive the nom's motivations to be. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy Keep, as an administrative matter, because nomination has been confirmed to be bogus by Мандичка and all other commenters. No one, not even deletion nominator has defended bogus nomination. We don't need to waste time by coming up with alternative theories for deletion. --Doncram (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it is well cited and passes WP:GNG. I don't see any evidence of it being a hoax. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually look at the sources? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main source comes from an academia.edu paper by the person who is proposing this state. None of the other sources have anything to do with the proposed state itself but merely reference Cebuano culture and tourism. Not a hoax, but just lacking in notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You agree the deletion is bogus, so we should be done already. I don't care to begin searching for other sources, etc., as if the deletion nomination were on different grounds. No one, Мандичка included, states they have done wp:BEFORE searching. No one states they have knowledge of relevant languages to be able to do proper searching. This is now just a fantasy project towards trying to delete something for the hell of it. --Doncram (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made-up one day by one person, and not commented upon by others. Perhaps "hoax" was too strong a word by the nominator, but searching for sources makes it clear that this has not received any attention from reliable sources. The article Sarani (community) is another "coinage" from the same author, which got an article here from the same editor, and should be deleted as well for the exact same reasons. Fram (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I'm sorry for that everyone, my point wasn't that clear. I thought you'd get it when you read the article and somewhat agree with me. But I guess, I was wrong. –hueman1 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Doncram. It's just a proposed state. It may be considered WP:TOOSOON. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AFD was nominated with assertion "Nothing but a blatant hoax", which is blatantly false. The AFD nomination has since been revised to be simply "Promotional content", which IMO is also false.

To quote from wp:PROMO: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. ....Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Which this is not; it appears to report objectively that a proposal for a state exists, which is true.

Opinion pieces. Which this is not: The article does not argue for a Wikipedia position about the merit of the proposal.

Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Which this is not at all.

Self-promotion. Which this is not at all. There exists no suggestion anywhere, except perhaps by implication of this bogus AFD, that author Pangan or anyone else is trying to promote anything commercial or otherwise by use of Wikipedia.

There is no merit to the revised AFD nomination, and again I think this AFD should be speedily closed as an administrative matter. It is wasting my/your time. It is not okay to use AFD to support a fishing expedition for repeated tries to come up with a valid argument. It is not okay to blast out random accusations. Note I also removed all of the negative tagging that was added by the deletion nominator to the article, which was a) excessive and b) included "hoax" allegation. I don't care to sift through b.s. to try to find some merit in any part of it. --Doncram (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but in ratio 60-45 (60 delete/40 keep): I'm not against the deletion nor keep, but for me proposed states like this are WP:TOOSOON. Also I noticed that it seems to place emphasis on the state's proposed flag and/or constitution. I think it's better to have a list of proposed states and place each on that list. But more compact. In short, there's a form of WP:COI. But I second the motion of the POV of @Fram: and @Superastig:. The original wording of the nominator is not important, but rather the essence of the deletion.JWilz12345 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rather question grilling the proponent on the technicality of the justification which in my opinion is a form of harassment. It is rather best to politely guide people especially new editors time to provide a clearer reason. I would vote for Deletion as the article should be incorporated to an article about Pangan's book (which do not exist, the "cebuano state" article cant stand on its own as "the Pangan book" so it cannot be moved to a new name). This article relied heavily on the Pangan book and the "secondary source" did not support it and only described some component like what is a Philippine Constitution, etc. To weigh in to the truthfulness of the article, there is NO legal process ongoing that explicitly proposing a Cebuano Visayan State and it is a work of fiction written to be like a notable event about a "people's initiative'. The only recognized process are the Philippine Executive Order 10 that forms the consultative commission and the PDP-Laban Federalism Institute. --Exec8 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I think it would have been better to speedily close the AFD, which would have left way for the editor or someone else to come up with a better AFD proposal in the future. But okay I guess the nominator is simply not going to withdraw their AFD proposal, and there have been some others' comments/!votes, so I acknowledge this AFD is going on.

Comment: Expanding the scope of the article to cover all or more of the secession/partition/merger proposals in the Philippines would be an option. Quick searching brings up others, such as the recent "Bangsamoro" proposal relating to Muslims in the south (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/philippines-duterte-approve-autonomous-bangsamoro-proposal-180722053525020.html this from Aljazeera], also this from Aljazeera in 2018-19; this from 2014, including about criminalization "of secessionist movements of Filipino-Muslims in the south", this from 1995, and more. Probably that is covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but a list-article can cover it in a summary way.

There exists Federalism in the Philippines partly about merging powers to the center. It's sort of unclear, at least from States of the Philippines about how many states there currently are, but the Federalization would create " 18 federal states and two autonomous regions in the Philippines – the Bangsamoro region of the south and the Federated Region of the Cordilleras of the north" per this from Asean briefing.

A country of our own: partitioning the Philippines by David C. Martinez is another academic work to consider.

I assume there have been other proposals for redistributions of power, for mergers/partitions of states, etc.

Covering this Cebuano Visayan proposal can be done in a bigger list of all such proposals, meeting our requirement per wp:ATD to consider alternatives to deletion, and in general developing Wikipedia rather than hacking away at it coarsely. Or if that is not going to be done promptly by anyone, then "Keep" is appropriate for this AFD, IMO. --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD doesn't trump WP:UNDUE, and a proposal which has received no attention is not a candidate to be included in any list or other enwiki article. Fram (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After five years in existence and a full cumulative month at AfD, the article has not been meaningfully expanded or improved, nor have any appropriate sources been identified or added. The Sin Chew story identified here only devotes one short paragraph to the subject: two sentences describing the structure (not the gallery, mind), and one lamenting the limited hours of operation. Lest this bare-bones page sit stagnant for years more with no attempts being made to establish notability, I feel deletion is the only appropriate result. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melaka Gallery (Malaysia)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Did a few searches in its Malay name but nothing indepth just directory listings. Previous AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malacca Gallery (Malaysia) LibStar (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful Malaysian tourist attraction to include in Wikipedia, and I'd hate to see this go. Online searches also indicate this gallery should be notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where are the sources from your online search? WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe it is mentioned in this sourceThe adaptation of creativity in museum sector: A case study of Malacca Maritime Museum, Malaysia, and anyone else searching for sources should try the alternative spelling, but the mention in the source is in passing as are other mentions. Found it mentioned in some books too, such as Lonely Planet, but existence is not notability, and none of the sources show why this is notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are Chinese sources like these[23] which has covered it.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Government of Dubai. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of Dubai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This title does not exist and there are no reliable sources for it. Umbermace (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Government of Dubai. It's likely not a hoax, but looking at the previous AfD discussion it does not appear to be a widely-used term either. I was about to say "Merge to Ruler of Dubai" but then realized that is a redirect. feminist (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Government of Dubai but can be recreated if more sources, lists, and tables are added. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge You cannot apply an American phrase to the whole world uncritically and assume it's automatically notable for being a person who does something. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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