Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 February 23 February >

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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatz[edit]

Fatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for companies: I've only been able to find non-independent sources, routine coverage ("Local Fatz Cafe Closes" etc.), and routine coverage in trade publications (see WP:ORGIND), which also describes the majority of the citations that were previously in the article. (This was previously prodded and deprodded in 2009. For reasons that remain obscure to me the history prior to 2011 is at Fatz Cafe.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Searches turn up only passing mentions and local coverage so the article also lacks significant coverage to support notability. Geoff | Who, me? 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything that would qualify as significant coverage in a reliable, independent source. I see some local coverage (so-and-so branch location is opening or closing) and other passing mentions or obvious press releases. Glendoremus (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacking in coverage despite 30+ years of life. Dorama285 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. Regional eatery, one of hundreds in the United States. Coverage is routine opening and closing of individual sites. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 1 March 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reddico[edit]

Reddico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotionalism for a promotional company. None of the refs are bothe substantial and independent DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, being mentioned in the FT1000 is a substantial mark of notability because the Financial Times is the UK's most reputable financial newspaper, which also has an international reach. Likewise with being listed on the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 (according to Wikipedia Deloitte is "one of the "Big Four" accounting organizations and the largest professional services network in the world"). If the FT and Deloitte say we should pay attention to Reddico, we probably should. The WireHive and Great Place to Work awards might not be quite so well known, but they are still important recognitions of the company's significance. Great Place to Work partners with Fortune to produce 100 Best Companies to Work For in the US, and partners with the FT to produce 100 Best Workplaces in Europe. Great Place to Work might not have a Wikipedia page yet (it probably should), but it is notable to be given an award by the consultancy. Secondly, all the references are independent. (Also, what is a "promotional company"? And should the fact that Reddico is involved in marketing mean that it should not have a Wikipedia page? After all, many other marketing companies do have Wikipedia entries.)--Evenmadderjon (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Financial times would have be a solid reference if it had written anything at all about the company. But it's just a list, showing that they went from 13 to 18 employees, which is completely normal for a small company that is just getting started. The other sources aren't much better, the greatplacetowork source says: "We’re an award winning digital marketing agency," so that's just the company talking about itself. Deloitte is not an independent, reliable news source, they're an accounting firm, or a "professional services network". perrysaccountants is also an accountant, not a reliable source for news. Per: WP:RS/P The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to other British tabloids, such as Daily Mail or The Sun. Kent online seems a little better, but I'm not convinced that local news from Tonbridge (population 40,356) is the kind of significant coverage WP:NCORP requires: attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability (WP:AUD). Forbes "contributors" are not reliable sources. Wirehive is a "a specialist cloud technology partner for agencies". Winning an award like "Most Respected Digital Agency" from wehive isn't the least bit remarkable. With categories like: "Best Use of Search", "Consumer Site of the Year", "B2B Site of the Year", "Agency Team of the Year", "Agency Leader", "Rising Star", "Not For Profit Site of the Year", "Digital Experience of the Year", "Brand Impact of the Year", "Performance Marketing Campaign", "Agency For Good", "Best Data Driven Campaign", "Digital Transformation", "Best Content Driven Campaign", "One to Watch", "Best Use of Emerging Technologies", it's wonder that was an agency that didn't win something. A local newpaper and a tabloid does not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" make. Vexations (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FT1000 doesn't work as WP:NCORP explicitly says top lists aren't good sources. Same for the rest that the user above me cites. Who's sentiment about the sources and general lack of reliable sources I totally agree with.  
  • Keep Being nominated for the FT1000 is not 'a list, showing that they went from 13 to 18 employees'. To be included you have to be one of the European 'companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue' according to the FT site (https://www.ft.com/content/238174d2-3139-11e9-8744-e7016697f225). I.E. it a significant - indeed notable - achievement, not just hiring five extra employees. It looks like the blurb on Great Place to Work might have been written by someone at Reddico, but the main point is that the organisation (which I think we can agree is a body that is trusted by many influential businesses) has analysed their operations and given them an award. While it is true that Deloitte is not a media company, it is a reliable news source, and one which is used frequently on Wikipedia (e.g. the Premier League football team Arsenal page: Arsenal F.C.#Ownership and finances amongst many others). The Mirror is undeniably a tabloid, but is generally considered a trustworthy news source in the UK (where I live) - incidentally the story is also covered in the Forbes piece. Kent Online is indeed local, but is used as a reference on numerous Wikipedia pages (Google this: www.kentonline.co.uk site:en.wikipedia.org). Forbes is a reliable news source for Wikipedia, and Roger Trapp (according to his profile page on Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogertrapp/#363f863a10c3) is a "UK-based journalist with a longstanding interest in management.... [and] was for many years an editor and writer at the Independent and Independent on Sunday and [has] written three books". I think we can call him and the publication 'reliable'. Reddico's WireHive award might not be the company's most highest accolade, but it would be remiss to not mention it. So, Reddico have been thought of as notable by the FT, Forbes, Deloitte which are all giants in their field, this makes a compelling reason to keep the page.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re "the FT1000 is not a list". FT1000 "The FT 1000: third annual list of Europe’s fastest-growing companies", The FT 1000, compiled with Statista, lists the European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue between 2014 and 2017." They call it a list. It's in list form. It's a list. Also note their "Criteria for inclusion in the list" section, where none of the things they use to qualify companies for the list are notable in Wikipedia. Let alone say anything about the notability of the company IRL. Revenue of at least €100,000, not notable. Revenue of at least €1.5 million, not notable. The company is independent, not notable. If a company is listed on a stock exchange, not notable either. Also, that they are completely arbitrary. Like being "independent", whatever difference that makes. Whereas, at least for top lists like the billboard top selling albums which Wikipedia allows it's based on selling the most albums. Which is actually notable on it's own. Whereas, nothing would every qualify for an article due to being "independent." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, Evenmadderjon To get a sense of in what way being listed on the FT10000 affects a company's notability and to find out how many companies on the FT1000 list have Wikipedia articles, I created User:Vexations/ft1000. Going through the list, I find some that I know for a fact have been created by paid contributors ot show signs of undisclosed paid editing. Very few of them are actually indisputably notable. Deliveroo, sure, no problem. As for the FT giving Reddico an award: no. This is not an "award". They ranked 309 on the list of " European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue between 2014 and 2017". That really means very little. I'll address Roger Trapp and Forbes as a source in a separate reply. Vexations (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re My point was that Reddico being mentioned on the FT site did not indicate the company 'went from 13 to 18 employees' as suggested by suggested by Vexations. Further, I don't think that the FT1000 is based on 'completely arbitrary' inclusion criteria. After all the Financial Times Global 500 has its own page. Maybe being listed on the stock exchange is not notable in itself, but all these criteria together do make a notable list, unless the editorial standards at the FT have slipped over the last few years. Regarding the point on 'independence', The Independent is a respected newspaper here in the UK, and I mentioned it because the journalist at Forbes had been employed in a relatively senior position there (editor), which contradicts the point made by Vexatious that "Forbes "contributors" are not reliable sources". i.e. Roger Trapp is a reputable source.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Evenmadderjon, the company 'went from 13 to 18 employees' as suggested by suggested by Vexations Ah, yes, I misread that. The entry is
Rank Company In 2018 list? In 2017 list Country Sector Absolute revenue growth Revenue CAGR 2014-2017 Revenue 2017 Employee Growth Employees 2017 Founded
309 Reddico no no United Kingdom Sales & Marketing 483% 80.0% 1.8 13 18 2012
  • So they went from 5 employees to 18. They're a small startup. It is unsurprising that they grew. We expect that from startups. From what I can tell, they now (2020) have 25 employees. Growth in number of employees from 2017–2020 is already about half of what it was from 2014–2017. This is normal. If their growth was exponential, or linear, that would be something. Vexations (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the list. That really puts it into perspective. What I meant about the criteria being arbitrary was that there is nothing inherently or universally notable about a startup having revenue of at least €100,000. Like why that amount exactly, except that Financial Times choose it? Why not €200,000, or some other amount? Whereas, with an artist who has an album in the top ten selling albums of all time everyone agrees what that means and why it's notable. Re 'independence', I wasn't talking about The Independent. I was talking about them making a company being independent, I.E. not a subsidiary, as one of their inclusion criteria. Which again, doesn't ultimately make a company more or less notable by any standard other then their own. That's one of the problems with top lists. They are extremely relative. Also, just because The Independent or the financial Times is usually a reputable source to cite, that doesn't mean every single thing they put out is worthy of citing in every instance. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
  • Evenmadderjon, Regarding Forbes contributors: Source can mean a number of things:the cited text, the author of that text and the publisher. When considering reliability of a source we ought to look at all three. The problem is that Forbes, when publishing articles by contributors, exercises no editorial control and does no fact-checking. That's why I say that (articles by) Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. It's because Forbes itself is not reliable. As to Roger Trapp himself, per his LinkedIn page, he worked for the Independent from Jan 1990 – Jan 2000 as Business production editor, business news editor and Management editor. His writing has been cited in a number of articles: Skyscanner, Teddybears (TV series), Richard Koch, Samasource, Strategic risk and Eric van der Kleij. Most of those articles cited there were written before 2000 for the Independent. The newer articles that are cited here are all published by Forbes. The argument that we ought to consider him reliable because between thirty and twenty years ago he worked for a publication that we consider generally reliable works both ways: for the past twenty years, his work has been published by a publisher who we (by consensus) consider generally not reliable. Vexations (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re The number of employees of a company is really not the point here. The digital economy is generally light on employees (eg versus the automotive industry: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/silicon-valley-big-three/527838/), so other criteria are used to judge the size/growth of tech companies. The FT1000 compiled by Statista (itself a reputable company) is based on "the European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue". Reddico's inclusion is based on objective analysis of the numbers by Statista and presumably signed off by the FT. The Reddico page does not mention that they are independent or not, I'm not sure why we are talking about this. The statement "just because The Independent or the financial Times is usually a reputable source to cite, that doesn't mean every single thing they put out is worthy of citing in every instance" basically leaves every source in limbo - who's to say that on any occasion a particular reliable source is not worth citing in this instance? Both the FT and Forbes are on the Wikipedia list of Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Indeed Media Bias/Fact Check would rate the trustworthiness of Forbes as 'High', but for their inability to see sense on climate science (so it is listed as 'Mostly Factual') https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/. As this mention of Reddico is about human resources rather than anything climate related, we should put it in the 'high' trustworthiness category according to MediaBiasFactCheck. So, the consensus is that Forbes is reliable. And this particular Forbes article says that Reddico is notable for the unusual way it treats its employees, namely by allowing them to be "accountable for themselves, their time and what they do". This degree of freedom is unusual, in the UK at least, and it makes perfect sense that this is reported on by one of the most respected (except for climate science) names in business news.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. There is well-established consensus, documented at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.com_contributors. Forbes.com contributors are not reliable, and continued attempts to overturn that consensus here are disruptive. Vexations (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Independence", on the FT1000 article here near the bottom in "Criteria for inclusion in the list" section. Third bullet point of inclusion criteria. To quote "The company is independent (the company is not a subsidiary or branch office of any kind)." Re "reliable sources", so would would letters to the editor in reputable sources be reputable just because the source it's in is normally reputable? Of course not and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Context matters. For a good recent example checkout the AfD for AdvanSix where someone cited a Yahoo News "article" (here that was originally a company press release from Business Wire. My guess is the person who cited it didn't even bother to check it and just thought "hey it's Yahoo News. Their reputable." Should we just go with a press release because Yahoo News is normally a usable source? Hell no. I'd say the same goes for Forbes. They even have a disclaimer that guest authors don't represent their opinions. I'd also echo what Vexations posted about there already being consensus on it that should stand.
    Re Yes, you are correct that Forbes contributors are generally not considered reliable, except on two conditions: a) that the article appeared in the print edition b) that "the article was written by a subject-matter expert". Roger Trapp is a subject matter expert, he has had articles published by his old employer The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/sme/business-analysis-david-levin-and-the-virtues-of-a-hands-on-approach-2090844.html), the Evening Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/business/sme-digital-marketing/shine-online-to-make-your-company-s-presence-felt-9083219.html), and has written a book What You Need to Know about Business that was published by the respected academic publishing company Wiley. Mr Trapp may be a contributor to Forbes rather than a member of staff, but he publishes articles there regularly (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogertrapp/#231aea4910c3 it appears he writes five articles a month for them). So, the company appear to trust him and we can see that his writing on Forbes is not single piece of one-off marketing puffery. I would imagine that they trust Mr Trapp and continue to publish his articles because they consider that he is a subject matter expert who has a background writing for and editing the reputable Independent newspaper. (Regarding whether letters to the editor are reputable sources, I would say it depends on two factors: is the the author of the letter a subject matter expert and is the letter factually true? As you said, 'context matters'. In the UK at least, there have been letters to the editors of newspapers of significant historical importance. A newspaper's editorial judgement is employed when selecting letters to the editor.) Anyway, as Mr Trapp is a subject matter expert who regularly writes for Forbes, he should be considered a reliable source.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have established that this company is notable because in 2019 it was been reckoned to be one of "the European companies that achieved the highest compound annual growth rate in revenue" as compiled by Statista and verified by the Financial Times, both reputable sources. Further, their unusual working practises (employees can take unlimited days off and work whenever they wish) have warranted attention from Forbes contributor and business subject matter expert Roger Trapp (who has written a book on business published by academic publisher Wiley, What You Need to Know About Business). Based on these points, I believe the page should stay and the deletion tag should be removed. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenmadderjon (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see why unusual working practices means notability. That it warranted attention from a SME doesn't mean anything per WP:NOTINHERITED. This all seems like puffery to me. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Not a single reference I have read even comes close to the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. One of many, perhaps thousands, of marketing firms created in the past 10 years. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 1 March 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Punch-Out!! characters[edit]

List of Punch-Out!! characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

list of mostly non-notable characters, WP:LISTCRUFT Prisencolin (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable. Large amount of refs, such as Hardcore Gaming 101, Kotaku, and Vice that gives opinions about the characters. Not to mention how both Little Mac and Glass Joe have their own articles. WP:NOTCLEANUP.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a properly trimmed and referenced characters section on the article on Punch-Out!!. Most of the references are "list of [x] characters" ("Top 25 Baldies", "The Top 7... Biggest drunks in games", "The 25 Douchiest Video Game Characters") and reviews, which I guess just proof that a character is in a particular game. The references used about stereotypical depictions are useful, but I wouldn't keep an entire separate list on characters just because of that. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The franchise article Punch-Out!! just links to this list, so this would at best be merged there. This is then not a valid deletion nomination per WP:ATD, even notwithstanding its unelaborated reliance solely on an essay. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main article -- not because of flaws in this article, just because the main article is pretty short and this would liven it up considerably. Definitely don't delete. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Little Mac, Glass Joe, King Hippo, and Donkey Kong have their own articles, as does Mike Tyson of course. The sources found by Zxcvbnm talk about the characters enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 03:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources identified by ZXCVBNM establish notability. — Hunter Kahn 03:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There are definitely sources about the characters, but it feels like there is a much better way to organize this information. The main article could also fit the current list (though it obviously needs to be cleaned up). The characters are pretty bare-bones, so it would be better to have a mostly basic list for their fictional details. The real world details on the positive and negative aspects on their character traits and stereotypes would be better organized as a general discussion on all the characters with better-picked examples used throughout. TTN (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reasonings regarding the sources and how the list meets the general notability guidelines. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:50, 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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Familiar of Zero characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of The Familiar of Zero characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not sure how that last afd went but there is no significant coverage from reliable sources. The only sources currently on the page and what I could find on a cursory search were mostly niche website that wouldn't pass the threshold of WP:RS and the fictinal works themselves. See similar deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F-Zero characters Prisencolin (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The last AfD had no policy based arguments, the character list appears to be WP:ALLPLOT. Fails WP:LISTN.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (in spite of article quality) as a valid content fork. Has anyone tried searching the Japanese name "ゼロの使い魔" and those of the characters? ミラP 14:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I did google it WP:BEFORE, but I'm still not convinced any of those sources are valid. Besides, if there are reliable sources, why aren't they on the article in the first place?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These lists tend to be kept as they cover notable series that may be WP:SPLIT due to WP:SIZE. A better option would be to trim down the character details and include them in the main article (The Familiar of Zero). Deletion isn't cleanup, and pointing to other deletions falls under WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a valid split/spinoff article. Notable series often have character lists. Dream Focus 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate split of List of characters from the light novel and anime series. Deletion is not cleanup. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A spinoff is not a valid spinoff if the resulting article violates inclusion policies or guidelines, as here: It fails WP:NOTPLOT (is only plot summary) and WP:LISTN (no indication of coverage of the topic as such in reliable sources). Sandstein 12:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some reception (real-life context) so it's technically not only plot summary and while coverage of the topic as such in reliable sources is cited by WP:LISTN as [o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable, there is actually no specific indication there that this is the only accepted reason absent Wikipedia articles for any of the list items, and in fact it also says lists that fulfill recognized informational [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Closing admin/user, if you're reading this, both delete votes have been addressed by the real-life context being added to the article. ミラP 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are lists of characters for many series. The main article will be way too long if merged. – 333-blue at 11:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The characters have received coverage as shown in the real-life context added by Miraclepine. Lagoona Blue (talk) 13:40, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Space Rocket[edit]

Kuwait Space Rocket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems a bit soon for this. While there are a couple of sources describing the project, I don't think this project meets the inclusion criteria. Kees08 (Talk) 22:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia article describes a new project in that region of the world, which is a noteworthy topic with various supported sources.Naserology (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited the article to reflect the maturity of the project please take a look, i added a section on the developmental process with related picturesNaserology (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant coverage from two reliable secondary sources: 1) Al-Seyassah 2) Al-Anba Sulfurboy (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd put this in the same category as any other product being developed, while it might be notable in the future when it's finished, it's not currently. Even with the two articles. The Al-Seyassah one doesn't load anyway. Whereas, the second Al-Anba article is a none neutral article full of POV issues that doesn't even give a timeline for the rocket. Except to say something about Kuwait being in space by 2025. So at best the rocket is still 5 years off from completion if not more. Which is way to far for an article. Especially with no coverage. Also, Naserology clearly isn't independent of the subject as the main editor of the article, it being the only article the user has edited, and also uploading a bunch of photos directly from the project that Naserology says is their own work. Personally, I say delete now and revisit it if and when the rocket is actually created and becomes notable. A few puff pieces and a couple of pictures of bolts don't cut it though. Same as it wouldn't with any other product at this point in its development. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,Interesting topic with enough coverage. Alex-h (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more source analysis as to whether added sources are significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Info
  • Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) is an official state news wire service based in Kuwait. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_News_Agency
  • Al Anba is an Arabic-language Kuwaiti daily newspaper. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anba_(Kuwait)
  • Al-Seyassah is a Kuwaiti daily newspaper published by Dar Al-Seyassah Press Publishing Printing and Distribution Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Seyassah
  • Al-Qabas is an Arabic daily Kuwaiti newspaper published by Dar Al Qabas Press https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qabas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naserology (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, all are based on interviews/quotations from individuals connected with the organization and project, therefore failing WP:ORGIND. I am unable to find any references, in any language, that meets the criteria for establishing notability. While the sources are reliable, that is only one part of the criteria. Another vital part is that the references must contain "Independent Content" as defined in WP:ORGIND and the references fail this check. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG. HighKing++ 12:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because a news story includes an interview of those involved in a project, doesn't mean that the news story automatically should be treated as a primary source. Media coverage has editorial oversight and investigative research typically before going forward with a story. In this case, I think the criteria for WP:SIGCOV is met.4meter4 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 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. But clearly, if this doesn't improve, and its renominated in 6m the article is more likely to be deleted Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dire Wraith[edit]

Dire Wraith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional alien race does not seem to meet WP:NFICTION/GNG. User:2pou presented several sources at Talk:Dire_Wraith#Deprod but they seem to me like press releases about minor aspect (failed attempt to trade mark the name). The article, as it stands, is pure WP:PLOT and I doubt there is much else that can be done to remedy that that doesn't bother on TRIVIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:18, 14 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 19:18, 14 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 19:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rom (comics), where they are covered extensively. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT, and is sourced entirely to primary sources. Any information from the failed trademark attempt can be added to the Rom article, and since it is not in the Dire Wraith article there is nothing to merge. I also note that the articles on the failed trademark attempt all come from the same source. The reviews of the book also brought but not linked to in the deprodding rationale do not contribute to notability for the character, but for the book. The article on the new series does not state anything about the Dire Wraiths that is not in-universe. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep per the sources found by 2pou. While most of them are either too in-universe or do not really discuss the character, there is enough, especially in the Comic Features information, about the creation of the characters and reception of them to build an article that passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST. Oy vey... WP:NORUSH. Obviously the article is not in the best shape, and it should be trimmed WAY down; however, that is not cause for deletion, but improvement. While I do recognize the argument Devonian Wombat makes, I still think there is enough specific to the Dire Wraiths separate from ROM. Two main reasons, after the loss of ROM, Marvel still used them for X-Men and others; and they have their own series separate from ROM. Unfortunately, not everything below from the older ages is available electronically, and requires some old-fashioned paper research, but I'll summarize.

    First arguement: The trade mark reporting is not at all press release material, and it is entirely secondary. A reporter in the industry got wind of trade mark filings and decided to report on the happenings over the course of several months. Before writing these articles, the source of information is US Patent office, not one of the publishers.

    As to other sources, I had been trying to slowly accumulate them in order to improve the article, but with an AfD, there is now a 7-day timeframe, so I will unfortunately just be WP:REFBOMBING them here and ignore any elegant prose additions (for the time being). In-line content will be handled more elegantly in the article, but in this AfD I am going to show the exist, as stated above:

Regards, 2pou (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST. Besides the many sources provided above, there's also this article from Bleeding Cool: "Marvel Comics Abandons Trademark Challenge Against Hasbro Over “Dire Wraiths”" (2017), which contains scans from some of the legal documents. They're clearly talking about the Dire Wraiths as separate from Marvel's Rom comic -- in fact, that's what the conflict is all about. It's true that the current article is almost entirely in-universe plot summary, but WP:ARTN says that the way an article is currently written does not affect the notability of the subject. The notability is established by the existence (WP:NEXIST) of independent, reliable sources discussing the subject directly and in detail. Folks who are concerned about the current state of the article should make edits and improve it. I'll add some of these sources as a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article have some good places to start. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Rom (comics) per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 2pou and Toughpigs. — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Rom (comics). WP:NEXIST seems to be the new favorite buzzword, but that does not mean that just because any old thing mentions the topic, it's immediately notable. Notability for the race is WP:NOTINHERITED from the comic in which they appear, nor from the series as a whole.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following... The refs above were specifically described in a way that decouples Dire Wraith from the both the comic and series and describes commentary directly made about Dire Wraiths beyond any old mention. This isn't as if its an AfD about "Analyzer (ROM)" where an article says "ROM uses an analyzer", therefore "Analyzer (ROM)" must stay! Or are you suggesting that the notability of a new comic series is not inherited from the original? To be clear, the new series has nothing to do with ROM other than utilizing the name for brand recognition. This seems like saying Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw is not notable just because Fast and Furious is notable. No, it's not, and I don't see any arguements made to that effect. It's a separate work that receives seprate notable reviews. This also seems to suggest that a fictional race or character should not have an article if there is a series associated with it, which I fully disagree with. This leads to articles like Cable (comics) & Cable (comic book) or Excalibur (comic book) & Excalibur (comics) being separated, when that is totally unnecessary for something that can be covered within a single article, and can only contribute to confusion to the an average searcher, in my opinion. Again, I'm not sure I'm addressing what you were specifically arguing, but I took my best shot in addressing the interpretations that I could imagine... and as stated, the article needed trimming, and it looks like Devovian Wombat did a very nice trim already to something that is more expandable with the real-world material presented above. -2pou (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I don't know why people are so gung-ho about using bottom of the barrel trivial mentions as sourcing. There's truly nothing substantial in any of the presented sources. This is D&D all over again, many kept articles that won't actually be substantially improved only to be nominated again down the line. TTN (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have reviewed the sources presented above and the best I can say is that we can SOFTDELETE this by redirecting to Rom comic book series. Nothing suggests this merits a stand-alone article as all the mentions are generally in the context of the Rom comics review, outside of the relatively trivial trademark issue that can very well be discussed there as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fair comment, and I suppose this comes down to a matter of opinion, but I would disagree that the trademark information is trivial, and having that in a ROM article would seem to bury the lede, but as always, I defer to consensus... And there's definitely nothing more real-world for fiction than who owns rights. Then again, I am facinated by trademark ownership, itellectual property, and licensing in general.  *Thinking to self* What was the deal between George Lucas and Disney, and was there nothing there about his story treatments? How does a license for Robert E. Howard properties like Conan not include Kull, and how did that get broken out in the first place? How does Marvel get around Universal's license to the Hulk film distribution rights. (There should be a category for these! I'll have to look into that! 

Also, not everything else presented above is directly related to ROM; only the "old comic" section can truly be attributed to ROM (and one might be able to make an argument about the new toy). The "new comic" material relates to ROM only in name to leverage the franchise branding, a-la Solo: A Star Wars Story, and Han Solo would have material from said film. -2pou (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to Rom (comics). Taking a pragmatic approach, tis article has existed for 16 years(!) and is in such a poor state that either people don't want to fix it, or it's unfixable. Rom (comics) already summarizes this race over many, many paragraphs that nothing would be lost by WP:TNTing it. – sgeureka t•c 08:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I personally didn't even know of this articles existence until it was PRODed. Only then did I bother looking for whether it was something fixable or not. Bringing attention to things is a side benefit to PROD/AfD (Yay!...yay?); however, I'm not encouraged to attempt to start any real fixing pending this discussion's result. -2pou (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per above, the references certainly allow for it. Merging to Rom is probably not the prefered solution as they have a history in Marvel comics in general now. Artw (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided show it meets the criteria for WP:GNG. AFD is not cleanup. If you don't like the article in its current state, roll up your sleeves and start working on it.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 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. Per Renata's analysis of the additional sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baltcap[edit]

Baltcap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(version at time of AfD Nomination; Diff between AfD nominated version and current state)

Not notable investment fund JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I prod'ed the article. No significant coverage. Renata (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, In my eyes, properly referenced and still an entity in it's own right. --BestOnLifeform (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally fails GNG as there's no significant coverage about the company. The only things in Google News are a couple of press releases and blog articles about them selling something. Nothing worth them having an article though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is more information in the article than I can find on Google. Dorama285 17:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've spent a bit of time pulling easily found items from Google News and using them to enhance the article; diff of current version as of this writing vs. version at time of nomination. Now, most of the information added is about its latest funds, but the frequency of the findings suggests relatively regular coverage in news outlets. Note that I found nothing when looking at Newspapers.com, likely because the resource lacks any Eastern European newspapers. Definitely still a Start class article, but more than a stub at this point. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Ceyockey: article still does not have significant sources to satisfy WP:NCORP. Ref numbers based on this version. #1 Rask is a related party announcement; #2 & 3 & 4 - press releases; #5 can't say as it's behind a paywall; #6 is mere mention with no significant discussion; #7 and 8 - press release pretending to be an article. They are active making deals (like any other fund), but there is no significant coverage that's independent of them. The only non-press-release-based articles I found (in Lithuanian) mentioned the fund in relation to Lithuania National Stadium (they got a concession there in December 2019) and in short-lived allegations of corruption against Gabrielius Landsbergis. But those articles just mention BaltCap and squarely focus on the stadium and on Landsbergis. Renata (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Renata3: That's fair. Sometimes, though incidental mentions support notability. For instance, just added a peer reviewed journal article that notes the firm being the biggest of its kind as of 2014 in the Baltic States; notions of "biggest" are taken into account in respect to notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm thinking that if the article is kept, it should be moved to BaltCap. --03:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:47, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuvva[edit]

Cuvva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about the company. Its just an insurance app company. None of the sources establish anything. Plus, the article is seriously written as an advert. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. The TechCrunch article clearly doesn't cut it for the reasons given by Vexations. The citations to awards don't either. Which really doesn't leave much. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 22:47, 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Banu[edit]

Shaheen Banu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG GDX420 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: At most, this would be a very weak "Keep". The subject had main roles in two Bollywood films of low-to-moderate notability, so she may pass WP:ENT—but the bigger problem is sources. While the subject is mentioned in a lot of articles (I'm only referring to articles written in English), she is generally mentioned in respect of her famous relatives; few articles talk about her career. (I'm going to spend some more time perusing the articles and may change my vote.) Dflaw4 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per nom. Article does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Her own work is admittedly ordinary, even run of the mill, and she does not get a freebie encyclopedia article because of her notable relatives. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 1 March 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bahou[edit]

Robert Bahou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject of this article does not meet GNG, NARTIST nor BIO. Book is self-published and most of the references are dead. Could not find anything to substantiate notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ditto the above. – BriefEdits (talk) 22:01, 29 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Baranov (politician)[edit]

Nikolay Baranov (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence this person existed as far as I can find. I couldn't find anyone by this name with those birth and death dates. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't actually stating anything about the subject that would constitute a notability claim at all — it just states that he existed, and doesn't even suggest an actual reason why his existence might have been encyclopedically noteworthy. And since it's completely unreferenced, even his existence hasn't actually been properly verified — and it isn't a good sign that there isn't an interlang to any evidence of an article about him in the Russian Wikipedia, where I'd expect the editor base to be more on the ball about notable Russian politicians. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with better Russian language skills can salvage it with an actual notability claim and some real sources for it, but as it stands there has yet to be any concrete evidence that this isn't just a hoax or an obscure personal ancestor of the page creator. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in present state - simply as a page that does not provide any substantial information about the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V; found zero reliable sources that he even existed. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 1 March 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrependimento[edit]

Arrependimento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't establish that this meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG but going for AfD in case I've missed something. Possibly of redirect or dab. Boleyn (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The album was not critically reviewed and was not discussed in reliable sources. I'd vote for a redirect but I'm not confident the group itself is notable; they are definitely not popular across Africa.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:46, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominatior, Speedy Keep #1. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Auer[edit]

Florence Auer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unref article. Appears to be on an actress with a long but not distinguished career. Unclear she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure how an actress who has appeared in at least seventeen Broadway productions (per ibdb and Brodway World), sixty-nine film credits as an actress ranging from 1908 to 1956 in films released by major motion picture companies such as American Mutoscope & Biograph, Vitagraph, Edison Manufacturing Company, Paramount, Fox Film Corporation, and Warner Bros., and three screenwriting credits for films released by major motion picture companies (per imdb) qualifies as having a "not distinguished career". According to imdb, she had the starring and secondary roles in the first several motion pictures released by American Mutoscope & Biograph as early as 1908, directed by Wallace McCutcheon Sr. and D.W. Griffith. Author Martin Shingler lists her as being being part of fourteen prominent stage actors who were part of Charles Frohman's stock theatre group specifically brought to Vitagraph in the early 1900s in the 2018 book When Warners Brought Broadway to Hollywood, 1923-1939 (some others others being Thomas H. Ince, Clara Kimball Young, Florence Lawrence, Maurice Costello, and Charles Stanton Ogle), as well as being among seven noted for Biograph's earliest stock of actors (including Lionel Barrymore, Mabel Normand, Harry Carey, and Blanche Sweet.) She is also cited in Roy Liebman's 2010 book Vitaphone Films: A Catalogue of the Features and Shorts for her lengthy career as an actress beginning in the 1900s and mentioning of her screenwriting credits. That she doesn't have much of a digital/internet presence, I suspect has to do with her "heyday" being in the 1900s and 1910s. ExRat (talk) 23:13, 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 keep. I'd suggest we save protection unless the improved article is shown to be unstable but happy for a ping on my talk if further steps are required Spartaz Humbug! 23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Branco[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Juan Branco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not passes the notabilities guidelines.

Most facts about his career are either prettified or unverifiable.

Most sources are either unreliable or related with him (at least politically).

The main notable fact about him is not mentioned. It is his implication in the recent political revenge porn by Petr Pavlensky D.Lazard (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,This article is self-serving. Juan Branco is a nobody. Nothing in his life justifies an entry in Wikipedia (unless you want to add 7 billion people in this encyclopedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Guy Rens (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Branco is quite famous in France, and most people will have heard of him (albeit not really for good reasons); there are many reliable sources on him (mostly French media). The problem is that he is known for editing Wikipedia for his own benefit. His article on the French WP is full of edit wars and manipulated sources. T8612 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Juan Branco is famous in France, but only for his implication in the Benjamin Griveaux video affair. By WP:1E, this is not a reason for keeping the article. This is only a reason for redirecting Juan Branco to an article about this affair (or to Benjamin Griveaux or Petr Pavlensky, if his name would be mentioned in these articles in the future). D.Lazard (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only, he was Assange's lawyer, published a successful book against Macron (250k copies sold), was involved in the Yellow Vests movement, and is everywhere in the media. T8612 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With Benjamin Griveaux video affairs, there are many reliable secondary sources about the biography of Juan Branco, which give a view of it that is very diffferent to that given in the article under discussion. Here are two of them (in French), one about his biography, and one about his relation with Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as said, although it's an autobiography, I think the subject reaches criterias. The French page has been completely rewritted, by "true" wikipedians, during the last 2-3 days, following articles in the press mentioning his contributions to the article— Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertsaxo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The English page was created and is mostly written by Branco himself, under at least one obvious alias, Banguicourage, which is a phonetic pun on his actual name. PetitCesar (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject might merit a French article but not an English one. As it stands the article is a hagiography and would have to be completely rewritten in any event. XInolanIX (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, i think a proper rewrite would be preferable to a deletion. His link to Assange and his role in the fall of the EM candidate during the mayoral race could merit sufficient notoriety. XInolanIX (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This article is self-serving, and Juan Branco is only known in France for manipulating media to get known, and particularly WP entries, to his own and only advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigré55 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this through the academic deletion list, and he's clearly not notable as an academic. In the previous AfD I also thought he didn't have enough WP:GNG notability. But now I think the Canal+ piece on his work with Assange, the Point piece on his role in the Griveaux scandal, and the Figaro piece on his Wikipedia misbehavior give him a clear case for WP:GNG notability, and the article has been significantly reworked to reduce its promotionalism. Given the behavior described by Le Figaro, I think permanent protection or at least permanent semiprotection may be warranted, to prevent this behavior recurring. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since I opened this discussion, the article has deeply changed, thanks mainly to XInolanIX. I am not sure whether Branco is sufficiently notable for English Wikipedia, but, presently, the level of notability remains the only criterion that could justify a deletion. Being French myself, I am not well placed for judging his international notability. So, I change my !vote to a weak keep. Also I agree with David Eppstein's suggestion of a protection of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a result of this AfD, the article has been substantially rewritten and is no longer a TNT case. Passes GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:25, 1 March 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pravat Rout[edit]

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

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

All prior XfDs for this page:


The subject of this article appears to fail WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2018 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRAVAT ROUT. I'm starting another AfD rather than requesting G4 deletion because the subject has a couple of additional IMDb credits since the previous AfD was closed.

Although the article introduces Rout as a film director, he has primarily worked as a casting director. As mentioned by Bearian in the previous AfD, this is not something that automatically confers notability. I was not able to turn up any good sources through an online search (this is all I could find, and it consists entirely of an interview with no original reporting). I suggest deleting per WP:TOOSOON. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The submitter has also submitted Draft:Pravat Rout. I have declined the draft as duplicating this article, on account of the previous AFD, and as failing to address notability for creative professions. If the article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the draft may be kept for future notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article as written fails to satisfy notability for directors or general notability, and fails to overcome the presumption of non-notability due to the previous deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment they also submitted another version User:Mansinghactor/sandbox to AfC - declined before I noticed this copy KylieTastic (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to work out what happened at that sandbox, KylieTastic, as it doesn't appear to have played out how you think it did :) The edit history shows you added 3906 bytes onto a redirect. I'm guessing Robert moved the submission just before you pressed save?! Anyway, I'm going to redirect the sandbox to the draft. --kingboyk (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • damn I didn't even notice - way to many edit clashes today KylieTastic (talk) 23:23, 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. A redirect to List of fictional canines can be optionally created. Sandstein 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional canines in television[edit]

List of fictional canines in television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much like its recently deleted Film counterpart, a list that is useless due to the ridiculous degree of specificity. It is a list only for canines that are neither dogs nor wolves that appeared in non-animated television programs. As a topic, it fails WP:LISTN. Also, despite only having four entries, it somehow managed to fail its own inclusion criteria, as three of the four entries includes are dogs or wolves. Rorshacma (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optionally redirect- this is both pointless and actively misleading. Reyk YO! 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the discussion of the film article, having a list of canines that excludes dogs is simply ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire Expert[edit]

Solitaire Expert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article cites no sources and I can find no relevant book or internet sources. It is not listed either by Parlett in his gargantuan compendium of solitaire games nor by the more recent Morehead and Mott-Smith. Despite being tagged for no sources for 5 years, none have been forthcoming. Non-notable and unsourced; delete. Bermicourt (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 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 redirect to Donald Judd (progression sculptures). Redirect preserves history for attributation of the new articles reuses this content and directs readers to the correct page. It it would be useful to have this history at the new page let me know, and I will do a history merge. Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Untitled (1967 Judd sculpture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Judd did hundreds of sculptures titled "Untitled" and in the same vein as this one. This particular specimen is not notable on its own, although Judd is highly notable, of course, and the body of work he made is extremely notable and in too many museum collections to count.

To sum up: the series of works is notable, but not this particular specimen. Sources are largely primary, and none discuss the work in depth. The Art21 source simply includes an image of the work; "The Art Story" source has an image of a similar but different work, and is used in the article as background on his practice.

As the last Afd boiled down to a set of arguments that "it's in a collection, so it's notable", I think it is important to point out that that is a criteria for the notability for artists per WP:ARTIST, not individual works. Museum collections in aggregate probably contain millions of works, and they are not all notable individually. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last time - when in fact the Afd boiled down to a set of arguments that "it's in the collection highlights self-selected by a reasonably major collection, so it's notable". As usual, the arguments that we don't want hundreds of such articles (which we don't) have proved alarmist - two years after the 1st afd this is still the only article we have on a Judd work. It's had over 5,000 views in the last 5 years, which isn't too bad. And I certainly take article views into account. When somebody tries to claim a bio getting a steady 300 views a day is non-notable, you know there's a problem with the nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not alarmed at all. In fact if the concensus of this AfD is to keep, I'll take that a s direction and make a few dozen Judd sculpture articles. I love his work, but this article still does not meet our criteria for notability just because it is in a collection. Article views, as always, are not a criteria for keep. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, others were - I don't think you commented last time, did you? To be clear, if there were "a few dozen" such articles, I would probably vote for merging to the bio, or bunching into group articles. I generally oppose deletion of the many articles in Category:Indianapolis Museum of Art artworks which are our only representative of a particular type of artwork. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - This is such an iconic and important work by Judd. It stands apart from so much of his other work as it is in brass and red enamel paint, giving it an element of warmth not often found in his work. It is indeed a notable work. Yes there are different versions of it in several museum collections, but that is not a reason for deletion (it's like a print or multiples series). The article should be kept based on the criteria in the first deletion discussion. This particular early work is a key to the late work. Anecdotally (and I realize anecdotes are not relevant arguments), many years ago I peered down the end of this work and was amazed at the optical effects created by the mathematical permutations of the interiors of the forms of the enclosed and open elements, and how the light interacted with these forms to create perceptual anomalies; years later when visiting the Judd Foundation in Marfa, TX and seeing the 100 boxes in spaces designed/retrofitted by him, it profoundly referenced this specific early piece, in relation to the optical/perceptual qualities and anomalies. Netherzone (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I love Judd too, but do you have any sources? There are several that use unique materials, see the list below.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: It is featured in "Donald Judd's Aritmetics and Sol LeWitt's Combinatorics. On the Relationship Between Visual and Mathematical in New York Art Around 1960." -- the lead chapter of the book "Imagine Math 3" by Michael Rottmann, Springer Verlag. There is also an essay by Anna Chave (not the famed scathing critique of Minimalism, but a different essay) I think it was with another author. I will see if I can find anything more substantial. I do think it's important to have an article on at least one of his individual works. My main complaint with this article is that the image sucks - I tried to retouch it and upload the color corrected version to WPCommons, but it seemed to revert to the present image. Not sure if I am doing something incorrectly on Commons. Netherzone (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many are in museum collections... shall we have an article for each? There is no in-depth coverage of the piece described in the article, and as you can see, it is not particularly unique. Several of the image descriptions mention the work as "one of an edition of three". That is common among the big shot artists, but the lack of coverage, and the fact that it's one of an edition, of which there are many variants, tends to say it's not notable on its own. I'd be happy to rename the article Donald Judd (progressions series) or Donald Judd (progression sculptures), if that interests anyone. There seem to be many Google books mentions of this "class" of Judd sculptures, and the current example could illustrate it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous project discussions have established that, at least normally, an article on a work from an edition, should potentially cover the whole edition - ie we don't want multiple articles on multiple casts etc - see The Thinker etc. By the same token, if works can reasonably be corralled into a "series", they should be. This has been done with the main Monet series for example. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod and Netherzone: What about this: Draft:Donald_Judd_(progression_scuptures)? It does seem to be a class of sculptures mentioned numerous sources. I had no trouble fining wide mention of his "progressions works".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm fine with this (when tidied). Much better than the deletion the nom sought anyway. I hope at least one source actually uses "progression_scuptures/series"? Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this. Wanted to mention tho that Ref #8 has a citation error note. Will change my !vote once this draft gets moved to article space. Netherzone (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC) I corrected the reference in the draft. Netherzone (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: the Chinati foundation had a big show where the blurb says "the Chinati Foundation will offer an open viewing of Donald Judd’s horizontal wall works (commonly called “progressions”. Other sources say something similar. It might be better in the long run to call it Donald Judd (progression works), as there are many more.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here we are:Donald Judd (progression sculptures). Now I am off to do some paid work elsewhere!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Assuming the new one sticks I'm happy to delete the old one, but please improve the categories, esp adding the Indianapolis Museum of Art one, or they may freak out. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified my !vote above to D. @ThatMontrealIP: Great idea to create a new and more comprehensive article for the series of works of which this is one Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this article actually says something encyclopedic! Thanks for your input and thanks Johnbod. Next up: Donald Judd (stack sculptures).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. @ThatMontrealIP:, @Netherzone:, @Johnbod: Should we move this article in order to preserve its edit history to the new topic on the series of works? I am not sure deletion is the best choice here when a page move might be a better starting point.4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - I never know these things - @Dianaa: Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops @Diannaa: Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod and 4meter4:The new article already exists, so that would presumably overwrite its history. Relevant items in this page have been included in the new one, as far as I can recall.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x2) @Johnbod: There's a couple ways to preserve the page history. One is to move the page to the new title, but if the new article is going to be about a series or set of works, it might be better to create a new page and copy the material on each piece in the set/series into that page, leaving redirects at the old pages. If this does not answer your question, please ping me again, as I won't be watching this page. — Diannaa (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Is it possible to merge the history, or link this discussion to the new article? Netherzone (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: that would be a question for an admin. Ideally, we would have simply moved this article and then begun the process of a re-write. However, since a beautiful article has already been made, that ship has sailed. Regardless, I see no reason to keep this article now that the information is housed elsewhere. I vote delete but if there is a way to merge article histories I think that would be good. If not it's not the end of the world.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 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) buidhe 01:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newton T. Bass[edit]

Newton T. Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any in-depth coverage outside a local paper ([1] in San Bernardino County Sentinel), and a single low quality source like this is hardly sufficient. There are few mentions on the county/town webesite (and even that is not particularly detailed, and does not seem to dedicate a supage or chapter for him, [2]). I really expected I'd find more, given he has a school and a stadium named after him in Apple Valley, California and is called the towns founder, but so far I am drawing blanks. As such, it seems to fail WP:GNG/NBIO, through I'd be happy to see this rescued. Sadly, my BEFORE failed. Hope you do better... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS argument is so 2000s. These days, you know, you are expected to actually read them and try to find something. I spend ~20m looking for sources. How about you spend at least one minute yourself? Do tell us what sources from your google search seem like in-depth and reliable. Go on.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this argument gives me the idea that you again failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is fairly in-depth, as is this. If that isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG, his extensive involvement in the oil and banking industries has also been covered, although I haven't been able to find anything online that is in-depth. This collection at the Huntington Library shows that the home he built was architecturally significant. It was clearly covered in depth in Pictorial California 36, no. 1, Winter 1961, 6–9. Bathroom reproduced in: Carolyn S. Murray, "Look What's Happening to Showers!," House Beautiful 103, no. 8, August 1961, 76. Add all that to his legacy with a stadium and a library named after him and I gotta say keep. Toddst1 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very local coverage and mostly about local landmarks, not him... I like local history, but at some point the coverage in local media is just too local/niche. Was there even a single paragraph about him written in a peer review work? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not have an exception for local coverage. You may be confusing this with WP:POLITICIAN which has an exception for local coverage but does not apply to the subject of this article. He clearly has enough in-depth (local) coverage to pass WP:GNG. Then there's the 10 page feature in that hyper-local Saturday Evening Post mentioned here. #BEFOREFAIL Toddst1 (talk)
These are from different periods in his life, so the type of coverage varies, but all of these articles are specifically about Bass -- either the development that he built, the company that he led, his personal life, or the pigeons that he trained to work in his hotel. (Seriously.)
Just the fact that the Los Angeles Times would use the headline "Son's Link to Slaying Shocks Newton T. Bass" on page 2 of the paper indicates that he was an important enough figure in the area for them to namecheck him, and assume that readers would recognize the name. And no, the metropolitan Los Angeles area does not count as "local". :) I'll add these to the article in a Further reading section, so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is part of series of mass-prods that should NEVER have happened per WP:PRD "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." With must, this policy uses a strong word because this part of the policy is extremely important that we all keep. When there is a mix of keeps and deletes in an AfD the article should not have been prodded. Here I see ONLY keeps! Then nominations without serious research, although there are claims to the opposite. So many sources found above and this happens in prod-turned-afd after prod-turned-afd. Maybe find a more constructive method to contribute to WP? gidonb (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per all the comments above, Sadads (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His LA Times obit shows his notability. The low number of Ghits is probably due to his life prior to the Internet going global. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 1 March 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 article had been deleted before the AfD discussion was completed. There were good reasons to delete all articles created by the creator. Under these special circumstances, although I participated in the discussion (fair disclosure!), I'm taking the freedom to close. No conflict with the discussion that ended in consensus to delete just as well. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Planet International 2020[edit]

Miss Planet International 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, the only source cited is a Instagram post and I’ve failed to find any significant coverage in independent publications. Kleuske (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, did not meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For these small peageants in general and, further to my WP:BEFORE, this one specifically, there is sufficient cumalative coverage for a general peageant article yet NOT for the annual editions. Kudos to Kleuske for nominating! gidonb (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. No reason for an article/page for this event/competition.Migsmigss (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the rest of the creators articles, which are all non-notable pageants. Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian A cricket team in New Zealand in 2019–20[edit]

Indian A cricket team in New Zealand in 2019–20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. List A cricket tours are not recommended as part of the WP:Cricket. Abishe (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ミラP 18:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron McIvor[edit]

Ron McIvor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet GNG. No reliable sources that could verify its notability. WikiAviator (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not a fan of permastubs on barely notable subjects, but a quick Google check supports the assertion that he played for Wigan, so he passes NFOOTIE. There will likely be print sources from the seventies that could be used to expand the article, but football sources aren't my area of expertise so I'll leave that to someone with an interest. GirthSummit (blether) 13:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he meets the standard for footballers, then he meets the standards. He had three appearances for Wigan Athletic and also scored a goal. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per reasons cited above. I would also note that East Fife were in the old Scottish First Division in the early 1970s (being relegated in 1974), and if he played a league match for them at this time (which the dates would seem to suggest I would think that would also meet WP:NFOOTBALL as the top league division in Scotland is usually considered to be a fully professional league. Dunarc (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He most certainly did play - the club mentioned one of his 1973/1974 goals on their Facebook page a few years ago. So easily meets NFootball, even if one ignores the spell at Wigan. Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 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 and redirect to Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Law and Forensic Sciences[edit]

International Association of Law and Forensic Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not apparent (WP:GNG). Search results are limited to passing mentions. Nothing of the content is referenced. The indicated website, http://ialfs.org, is in Indonesian and seems to be some kind of blog. Their actual website is http://ialfs.com. Possibly merge to their journal, Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, if that is notable, which I can't determine. Sandstein 12:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Football Club vs. Matthew Reed[edit]

Arsenal Football Club vs. Matthew Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The encyclopaedic notability of this subject is not established in the article. The sources are all from niche journals or official legal records, rather than establishing a general level of notability. For this, I would expect the subject to have been covered by a news outlet. – PeeJay 10:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 10:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am going to say keep, however I think the title of the article needs to be adjusted. There are sources like daily telegraph, INTA (which is one of the largest organisations for help in Trademarks), others [4]. Plus I think the article needs a cleanup. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as appears notable, but needs big clean up and a rename to Arsenal Football Club v Reed as is standard for British legal cases. GiantSnowman 10:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Law's list of law-related deletions. – GiantSnowman 10:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Arsenal Football Club v Reed per GiantSnowman. Lawsuits involving Premier League clubs are usually notable, and according to the text, it has special relevance in trademark law. Article should also be edited and updated, it ends with: "To date (April 2007..." —МандичкаYO 😜 11:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 05:12, 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 per CSD G5. Harrias talk 10:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aarish Ali[edit]

Aarish Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC at least for now. Human (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:49, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The9Man | (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanath Mukhopadhyay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Priyanath Mukhopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Even though the book is released, it doesn't have any coverage. His profession is also not supported by references. The references added later looks pretty convincing to me as well. Though most of them are non-english which made it difficult to identify earlier. The9Man | (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simiyu Samurai[edit]

Simiyu Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Originally nominated for PROD, but I think that this deserves a hearing at AfD since once of the provided sources claims that the subject won an award at the Kalasha Awards. That having been said, I wasn't able to find much more than mere mentions and PR when looking for more sources online. signed, Rosguill talk 00:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. This is an incomprehensible essay about a film. No way to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of sources necessary to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILM in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find only one potential source, a doctoral dissertation "Extended cinema in Kenya and Tanzania: Technological Innovation and Related Trends in Local Audiovisual Storytelling" by Overbergh, Ann ; van Witteloostuijn, Alien (advisor) ; Schramme, Annick (advisor), 2014. That's not enough to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 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. Rebuttle of sources seems compelling Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Association of Economics Education[edit]

Global Association of Economics Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has to be considered to be problematic. The references are not reliable, many are blackhat SEO type references, and many seem to be paid featured articles. I see no independent quality references. The entire article is an attempt to seem to be important and to baffle with false credibility. The contributors would seem to have an undeclared conflict of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, the aforementioned contributor who I accused of having a conflict of interest is the same contributor listed as uploading the image used, for which an OTRS permission exists. I will be asking the Commons OTRS to comment about this CoI aspect of this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A public AfD discussion is not the correct place to make allegations of COI based on personal suspicion or guesswork. The request related to this AfD raised at c:User_talk:Krd#File:Global_Association_of_Economics_Education_Logo.png appears to be in direct conflict with WP:OUTING, in particular Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy, a policy that applies to all contributors. Posting on Wikimedia Commons does not by-pass the policy, nor does it make breaking it any less serious.
Please consider rewriting the nomination to focus on the article, rather than user accounts. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misquote WP:OUTING. I have not posted any public information about this person. That I draw lines between contributions that a person makes at WMF sites with regard to conflict of interest, and potentially paid editing, is just that. An article that has conflict of interest editing, and what seems like UPE outside of here that are used for references should have that noted in the deletion discussion, there are elements here that have the potential to be fraudulent. I am happy to change the structure to emphasise the problematic article, though often it is the crosswiki editing that draws one to problem articles. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Care has been taken to precisely quote WP:OUTING.
If you have evidence of fraud, write to WMF legal, rather than publishing claims on Wikipedia, even if you are using elliptical language. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything to add regarding the CoI allegations, but I think a case could be made for deletion, given that the organization makes very weak claims of notability, even before considering the reliability of the cited sources. For example, attaining state and federal tax-exempt status and meeting a comprehensive non-profit directory's transparency standards don't make the organization notable per se. The "formal association" with UNDGC would need to be explained further for it to be a statement of notability. (The same would hold true for the translation at the Vietnamese Wikipedia.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was a volunteer for this organization last Fall so my opinion might be biased. Nevertheless, I believe GAEE satisfies the notability standard of Wikipedia. It is a CSO Partner and an NGO recognized by the UN's Economic and Social Council, which is quite significant for any civil society nonprofit, especially a fully youth-led one. This organization is also recognized as a strategic partner with AIESEC (I believe someone already mentioned it in the article) and listed in the Research Paper in Economics (RePEc) database of St. Louis FED. I am not a professional in terms of SEO links, but I don't see any references that are blackhat or illegal. I agree some of the references may be quite promotional, but instead of right away deleting an article about a legitimate organization (that operated in 8 countries), I believe Wikipedia has other templates like "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral" and "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" so someone can improve it in the future. I don't quite understand the hostility towards a youth organization here and would like to provide any insights, despite potentially biased, that may be helpful for the administrators and editors in improving this article. --38.140.158.106 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The articles suffers more than promotional, it has links to articles that contain outright lies, and they have been added by a person with an apparent conflict of interest. If the organisation has notability, then it should be demonstrated with suitable citations. Where is the evidence that they are an NGO associated with UNESCO, surely UNESCO would have such a link, similarly any strategic partnership, otherwise it is all hearsay. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite disturbed by billinghurst's ignorance of the references cited in this article. This page on AIESEC clearly indicated GAEE to be a "strategic partner." This link on the United Nations ECOSOC website clearly referred to this organization. Similarly, this page on World Economics Association shown GAEE as a global group working for the reform of economics education. RePEc also had this organization in its database. I don't understand why billinghurst went at great length to condemn this organization, including breaching the WP:OUTING and calling all the cited references "outright lies". Even if you discredit all the news sites cited, how could you consider AIESEC, United Nations, RePec, and WEA to be incredible sources? I suspect the motives of billinghurst here. Krd has already confirmed here that he/she/they "don't see any conflict of interest." 38.140.158.106 (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you user 38.140.158.106 for reciting sources that affirming the legitimacy of this organization. I can see that those would like this article to be deleted cited reasons like SPAM, lies, COI, etc rather than actual issues with the article itself. If there are issues with Notability or secondary sources, I ask other users to state directly instead of attacking contributors to this article or citing elliptical, emotional reasons. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that the article has been deleted on eswiki and simplewiki for being considered spam. This is an evident cross-wiki spam issue. Esteban16 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you consider an extended confirmed user using the Content translation tool to be spam? For the record, the article in eswiki is deleted because it is "written like advertisement," not spam. The articles in these wiki was there for 5 months, so I suspect those deletions was influenced by this AfD. Previous users in this discussion have suggested to focus on the article itself, not the users who contributed to the article. If you have issues with this article, such as Notability, please address directly. Thank you. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my contributions at Wikidata on topics related to this Organization was also promoted for deletion by billinghurst. He/she/they falsely claimed here that there is "no evidence of fellowship" for the subject in the Q79835203 property. This page on the RSA clearly indicated the subject in said property has been a "fellow since 2019." So yes, if the adminstrators wants to delete anything, they can just went on to cite some opaque reasons and make some blanket statements while ignoring all the facts (that they don't want to see). Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nguyen.asia.18:: For the further record (I suppose) I should clarify that I am not an administrator, "so-called" or otherwise. That said, I have been participating in AfD discussions for over a decade and have contributed to over a thousand of them so I like to think I know what notability means on this project. I "cherry picked" those three references because they were only ones that even made an attempt at significant coverage. The vast majority of the references were barely more than simple database listings, links or "partner profiles". Allow me to quote the entire relevant text from the World Economics Association site you linked to above: Global Association of Economics Education (GAEE). To address the others; they are, respectively, a "partner profile" and not independent, a UN database listing, another database listing, and what appears to be a student journalism piece. None of these, nor the multitude of other even less useful links at the article page (e.g., the 501(c)(3) determination from the IRS) contribute to understanding the group. This is why I linked to the essay on citation overkill. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:: The article on Gizmodo is not a Press Release. Discrediting the piece on University of Arizona as "student journalism" to opaquely claim that no sources meet the standard is absurd. If you think the sources on the UN and AIESEC website to be "not independent," then put the "Template:Primary sources" on the article.Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, blanket statement. Nguyen.asia.18 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Others have already commented on the sourcing issues, but if you want a detailed analysis. Here we go:
This source is self published and not independent of the subject. This source is a self published blog that is mirrored on Apple News and therefore not usable. This source is s self-paid advertisement. This source has no named contributing author or publisher and is likely a self-promotional generated piece of writing that was put out by the subject. The London Economic source is a blacklisted source on wikipedia. This source has no named contributing author. Lists with no author like this one are often paid for lists with content provided directly from the subject. This source also has no named author and is likely information taken directly from the company itself. I would go on, but its more of the same the whole way through.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Gomatam[edit]

Abhinav Gomatam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced actor. Fails notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • usernamekiran(talk), I'm not clear on your position. Are you arguing that the subject fails WP:NACTOR because he does not have "multiple" significant roles in notable productions, or because the roles themselves are not "significant"? Dflaw4 (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom and usernamekiran. My location may present some sourcing bias, as I could only verify what has already been shown, but links to "YouTube", "idlebrain" (2), and "facebook" does not satisfy the WP:BLP sourcing criteria. Lacking basic biographical content such as age makes this a pseudo-biography. The previous comments seems to center around what "minimum degree" of bare notability there might be. A lack of reliable and independent sources seems to indicate it might be WP:TOOSOON. Otr500 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV with three significant roles in three films as supported by multiple articles in The Times of India. My WP:BEFORE search yielded numerous articles verifying that content.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagdad Junction, Washington[edit]

Bagdad Junction, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Road junction not community. An accident happened here; mention of a road junction; can't find anything calling it a community or establishing notability. Reywas92Talk 08:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 08:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 08:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no reference Bagdad Junction being a "Populated, legal recognized place" as per WP:GEOLAND. There is no evidence of a Post Office. The coverage is trivial, so the criteria in "Populated places without legal recognition" is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence this is a populated place of any note. see Google satellite image. It's just a junction. There appears to be agricultural structures in the area but that's it. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability for a community or populated place. Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is incredibly common for a populated place to be named after a nearby intersection. And not all populated places have their own post office. All delete !votes are red herrings. Smartyllama (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to be a place,[5] but it is not so clear if anyone or anything exists there. Likely there was once a town named Bagdad[6] at this location, whereas now only the junction remains. StonyBrook (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    .....Hometown locator is not a reliable or useful source whatsoever...it just imports data from the GNIS and collates it with census data and maps. Not sure the vague "Submitted by: Wayne Reid" is reliable either, it's likely someone's ranch was called Bagdad at or near this junction, but my links above and [7] are all I've found mentioning it, no evidence it was a town. Reywas92Talk 06:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete What the topo map history shows is that the only thing here besides an intersection was a benchmark and a horizontal control point, both of which seem to have been removed in the 1980s. One suspects the point got named to give names to those survey points. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 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 all to the article for the corresponding municipality. If the articles identified by Tinton5 or others are substantially improved to show notability a restoration remains possible. I cannot automatically perform the redirection and leave this up to the nominator, Reywas92. Sandstein 12:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Village, New Jersey[edit]

Fleetwood Village, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also

Hickory Hill Estates, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parkway Village, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wynnewood Manor, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hampton Hills, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hillwood Manor, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sherbrook Estates, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sherbrooke Manor, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Village on the Green, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Warner Village, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (apartment complex)
The Orchards, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golf View Manor, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferry Road Manor, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A single apartment building?!
Churchill Green, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weber Park, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Princeton Colonial Park, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old Mill Farms, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mountainview, Mercer County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lakeside Park, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Curve Heights, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden Crest, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edinburg Park, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delaware Rise, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briarwood, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briarcrest, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briar Manor, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [8]

:Quaker Bridge, Mercer County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) literally a bridge?

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Meadows, New Jersey, these are subdivisions/housing developments largely sourced to real estate websites. No indication of substantive sources establishing notability to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92Talk 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 08:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to article for corresponding municipality Where articles have no meaningful content other than a statement that the place exists, there's neither any need not any benefit to have a standalone article. No prejudice against recreating any of these articles should additional meaningful sourced material be available to create an article with some meat. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to article for corresponding municipality and, where applicable, to section #Geography for those articles with no substantive content other than a statement that the place exists, as was the the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Meadows, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just Parkway Village, New Jersey, Quaker Bridge, Mercer County, New Jersey, Lakeside Park, New Jersey, Mountainview, Mercer County, New Jersey, & Weber Park, New Jersey and redirect others to corresponding municipality page specifically on its geography section. The ones to keep have potential for growth, as Quaker Bridge [9] is a notable and historic area which houses the Quaker Bridge Mall. Tinton5 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the significant coverage that provides notability for these neighborhoods? The Quaker Bridge Mall is listed as being in Clarksville, Mercer County, New Jersey, perhaps this history can be included there. Reywas92Talk 01:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. Tinton5's comment makes me think that a WP:MULTIAFD is not a good procedure for these articles as there are multiple articles which we may need to examine and discuss notability on an individual basis. I suggest the nominator withdraw the nomination and not do a bundled AFD, or at least omit the ones raised by TInton 5 and nominate those articles individually. Otherwise it is going to be too confusing of a conversation.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a good procedure to mass-produce hundreds of stubs about non-notable subdivisions! It would be a massive waste of everyone's time to vote on these – and the scores more bulk-created NJ subdivisions – individually! Fine if this is relisted to give people time to review them; none of Tintin5's mentions pass GEOLAND2: no significant coverage about generic housing developments. More than happy to strike any if actual sources are provided rather than a hand-wave of "potential". Reywas92Talk 06:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet we have an editor claiming that a good portion of these are notable. It's too burdensome on a closer to find consensus when we are having to argue over the notability of multiple articles in one conversation. Further, it's too burdensome and complex of an AFD to be welcoming for comment by other users (which is why very few editors have participated) because it is overly complicated. In other words, its a bad procedure to actually achieve the purposes of an AFD in this case.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he's not claiming they're notable, he makes a specious claim of "potential". {u|Tintin5}}, do you care to provide any evidence for this? You're welcome to recreate them with significant coverage from a redirect. What's really burdensome is when someone makes hundreds of one-liners and fails to actually establish notability. What's complex and unwelcoming is dozens of separate discussions on identically non-notable topics since no one wants to waste time copy-and-pasting the same comment since they all fail GEOLAND2 the same way. But fine, struck Quaker Bridge since at least a link was included. Or strike all five! But I don't care for procedural nonsense when there's so much spam auto-generated without sources establishing their place. Reywas92Talk 19:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, asking that the group present evidence for multiple articles and then individually vote on multiple articles is not good process. I suggest at a bare minimum removing the ones listed by Tintin5 from this nomination and then renominating those individually so a proper WP:BEFORE search for sources and an evaluation of those sources can be done. It's just going to get too confusing otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think MULTI is a problem here; I looked through the articles and they're all the same and can be treated as a class. There's no obvious claim to notability for any of these unincorporated communities. If one of them is actually notable, then someone's free to re-create with actual content and references. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 4 March 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 List of minor planets: 4001–5000#199. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Andreev[edit]

Gennady Andreev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SME Branding[edit]

SME Branding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy article based entirely on namechecks in primary sources, written by two accounts with no other contributions. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Guy (help!) 07:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that it reads like a promotional brochure. Dorama285 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any quality sources on this company. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 1 March 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 Air Adriatic. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Wings[edit]

Adria Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable former airline. If you could even call it that. As apparently it never even got off the ground. Both the citations are dead links to the same site and nothing for it seems to come up in a search. So it hardcore fails WP:GNG. Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really needs to have actually operated a commercial service to be of note for inclusion, this was just an idea that didnt get very far. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Air Adriatic. It did receive some press and articles like this talk about defunct airlines in the region, so it may get past WP:GNG if someone tried hard enough. SportingFlyer T·C 13:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to absence of WP:SIGCOV in RS Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 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). From Analog Horror, (Communicate) 18:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anoncopeucus[edit]

Anoncopeucus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has been almost nothing in the article since 2011. It only has one reference, and isn't notable. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 06:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - doesn’t seem like WP:BEFORE was done, there are links in in the taxonbar. Also see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. --awkwafaba (📥) 14:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty much all valid/accepted genera are notable and worthy of inclusion as encyclopedia articles (see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES). I also expanded the article a bit. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 01:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Name genera are notable. Searching in google book brings up sources, and regardless per WP:5P1 Wikipedia is also a gazetteer, and this article falls within that.--Eostrix (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above mentioned matters/reasons. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apart from species being inherently notable, meets WP:GNG, improvements to the article reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes notability. However some more detailed information on the subject would be neccessary. - The9Man | (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:03, 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexanderstone Meadows[edit]

Alexanderstone Meadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article needs to be deleted because a one sentence article with no references and no notability. I have also tried finding anything about Alexanderstone Meadows, but nothing showed up, which means there is no significant coverage. I am also nominating Boxbush Meadows for deletion. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ASTech[edit]

ASTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable "tech cluster" (tech region?) in France. Nothing for it comes up in a search and only one source in the article isn't dead, but it only has trivial coverage. Adamant1 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient RS to demonstrate how this passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. gnews comes up with Analytical Solutions Technology which is a different entity. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 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) 23:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Gaucho (Israeli restaurant)[edit]

El Gaucho (Israeli restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Had a PROD that was removed without reason. Reason for PROD was "Created by a sockpuppet of globally-locked User:Tyciol, glaring fail of WP:NCORP, unambiguous WP:PROMOTION." Which I think is totally valid. There is only one source that seems legitimate. The rest are either primary or trivial coverage and I was unable to find any other sources, in-depth secondary ones or otherwise, by doing a search. So, it clearly fails WP:CORP. Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Almost all of it is sourced to the restaurant's own website, or eLuna. One review in the Jerusalem Post is woefully undersourced, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. We're not yelp, or the yellow pages, and we don't run ads. Vexations (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the references are to the company's own website. Number 57 13:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two people who said delete appear to only be looking in the article, unlike the nominator. The sources need to exist to establish notability, not just in the article. I have added about 4 sources to the article which are more than enough to meet the criteria for WP:GNG. There are many more out there, a search in Hebrew will come up with plenty of sources, searching in English will not, but being that this is an Israeli chain it makes sense to find mind in Hebrew. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Galatz, kindly refrain from insinuating that participants in this discussion have not done due diligence. Vexations (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vexations: Ok let me rephrase. The two people who have commented have only mentioned the status of the article at that time. The status of that article has nothing to do with whether or not an article meets WP:GNG. Sourcing not included in the article should be considered when determining notability however neither has mentioned this. Better? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Galatz, if you look at my contributions, you'll notice that I sometimes list all the sources ever used used in an article, or (earlier today) point out all sources added by a specific editor. I do my research. Do not suggest that my !vote is deficient because of some hypothetical omission. If you think that there are sources that meet the requirements of WP:NCORP, point out which ones specifically meet those requirements: excluding the links to elgaucho's own website and neto, a dead link, that leaves: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]
      [17] Not one of those meets NCORP. I stand by my comment that we're not a directory Vexations (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG trumps WP:NCORP and those 8 sources are more than enough to meet GNG. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vexations: What makes you convinced that the references provided by Galatz do not establish notability? Can you please take the time to give an analysis of the sources. Also, do you speak/read Hebrew?4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4, As you can see on my user page, I speak Dutch, German, English and French. I also speak some Spanish and Italian, which I haven't mentioned, because I'm not good enough to have an unmediated conversation with a native speaker, though I do occasionally translate from Spanish and Italian. I rely on google translate for reading other languages. I have a fair bit of experience with using machine translation though. In a previous career, I worked with teams that spoke only Japanese or Arabic, and I have worked with clients that spoke Russian or, yes, Hebrew. I think I have a fairly good idea of what a Hebrew source has to say about a subject.
    Let's take https://www.maariv.co.il/news/israel/Article-594855 published by Maariv_(newspaper) for example: the translation is pretty crappy, but we can find out a few things about the restaurant: Elazar Shlomi is the director or branch manager of El Gaucho. It's not immediately clear of which branch, but given the photo credit, and the mention of "Dan District"( במרחב דן) it is likely the Ramat Gan location. (That location closed in 2018, but the source is from 2017). Shlomi claims that the restaurant was a "a truly kosher kosher restaurant". It's not immediately clear to me if that means kosher mehadrin, but I think it does (כשרה למהדרין ). And that's it; there is not other information about the restaurant. It is where something newsworthy happened; a woman died of suffocation despite receiving early medical attention. There is hardly any usable information in that article: We wouldn't have mentioned the name of the manager of a closed branch anyway, and it's also doubtful that we would have mentioned that that branch was kosher. As unfortunate as the death of the poor woman was, a restaurant is not notable because someone died there.
    To me this looks like reference stuffing: add lots of citations, no matter how trivial, irrelevant, or outdated to make the subject look notable. Do I really have to do this for all the citations, or can I ask that instead the keep proponents tell us which two sources are the best ones to show that the subject has received the kind of news coverage that WP:NCORP and the GNG require? Vexations (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vexations: Considering that you are the one claiming that the sources in the article don't meet W:NCORP, then I think you should take the time to give us an analysis of the individual sources given that they are not in English and other reviewers may not have your experience with machine translations or be so well versed in navigating foreign languages in general. This is particularly important because another editor claims the sources meet the threshold of GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4, alright. Two articles in colbonews.co.il, https://www.colbonews.co.il/haifa-news/70486/ and https://www.colbonews.co.il/haifa-news/70641/ discuss an order by the Ministry of Health to close the restaurant due to "serious deficiencies that endanger public health" on 24 December 2019 and again on 9 January 2020. The order was rescinded after a third review on 12 January 2020. I think that colbonews I can't find anything in the two articles that actually says anything about the restaurant that one might use to create an encyclopedia article. They were shut down temporarily an re-opened. Does this meet the requirement "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I don't know much about colbonews (it is only used as a source in one other WP article), but it appears to have some relationship (owned by?) Haaretz. The articles don't read like press releases by the restaurant so I'd be inclined to say it both an independent and a reliable source. Is it significant? No. The only claims that we can make about the Haifa branch of the restaurant chain (based on these two articles) are: The restaurant is located on Yefe Nof Street in the Carmel Center in Haifa, it was closed and reopened. This source, therefor meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP Vexations (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4, then there's Globes, also a generally reliable and independent source (I've counted 1469 citations). There are again, two articles: one from 2010; https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000580296 and one from 2012; https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000763189
    The first is an article in the business section. It has some information that might be usable: Adi Ezra is the owner of El Gaucho. (The article doesn't mention it, but he's Bar Refaeli's husband. El Gaucho is investing 2 Million NIS (+/- 600,000 USD) in upgrading their processes, marketing and branding. They import meat from Argentina. They have been in business since 1982. They had eight restaurants in 2010. They hosted more than 500,000 diners per year. (This is a bit vague, we're not sure when that was). Does this source meet GNG and NCORP? It's independent, outdated and not very clear on visitor numbers. I've not be able to verify the ownership elsewhere. The facts reported by Globes are WP:ROUTINE and nearly impossible to verify, although there is a brief mention of El Gaucho in https://hollywoodmask.com/entertainment/adi-ezra-net-worth-bio-wedding.html.
    The other article in Globes is a restaurant review of sorts. It doesn't state any facts, other than that El Gaucho was (when?) listed in the results of a survey (which one?) as "he best meat restaurant in the country". It then goes on to provide a long list of better places to eat a steak, and points out that the Tel Aviv branch has closed. The reviewer then mentions that he once enjoyed a good steak in the Eilat branch. There is no information about the business.
    So, neither of these two sources gives us significant coverage either, and the do not meet the GNG and NCORP. Vexations (talk) 16:54, 1 March 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 Keenan Wynn. Spartaz Humbug! 23:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo Hawk[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alonzo Hawk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2009 Afd closed due to WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments. I looked at Books/Scholar and couldn't find anything that goes beyond passing WP:PLOT mention. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:39, 14 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 17:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST. I added some sources to the article -- two contemporary newspaper articles that talk to Keenan Wynn about his approach to the part, and a shout-out from Leonard Maltin in The Disney Films. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found a source discussing the character here. However, I'm not sure if this article could be any more than a permanent stub per WP:PAGEDECIDE. While Toughpigs found some quality content, the lengthy quotes are fully associated with Herbie Rides Again and could belong there. At minimum, the article should merge/redirect to Keenan Wynn with 2-3 sentences about this recurring role. Judging from the details so far, this does not strike me as the kind of character where there is in-depth discussion across multiple works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Erik, I'm glad you found another source. I think that is an example of what you're saying we need, a source that's discussing the character across multiple works. Or am I misunderstanding? -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean that even with that source, it's not a very detailed discussion of the character overall. It's not a lot of "meat" to sustain a standalone article where it seems like it could be covered in a few sentences at the actor's article. The novelty is more in the recurring appearances in otherwise disparate works than anything substantial to say. I could be wrong, but plunging for sources, it seems hard to envision something more than a perpetual stub. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not enough indepth discussion to justify this article. Beyond that, I think we are jumping to conclusions that just because the same actor plays a similar named (but appearantly different middle initial character) in films that have entirely different settings it is the same character. I am not convinced we have anything that really supports the view that Alonzo Hawk in The Adsent Minded Professor is the same as Hawk in Herbie Rides Again. I know some want to say "but the same guy played the character", but that ignores the facts on the ground in different settings, and especially Hawk of Herbie Rides Again being a long running scheming builder of real estate wealth in San Francisco. I think this article is built around an unsourced assumption that these two characters in very different movies with no setting overlap otherwise as somehow one and the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources currently in the article are extremely minor and do not hold up to the significant coverage threshold. TTN (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Keenan Wynn - As Erik said, while there are some sources discussing the character(s?), the coverage in them is not enough that this would ever be able to be more than a stub. The information would be better covered as a brief mention on the actor's article, if anything. There is also the issue, brought up by John Pack Lambert above, that there is no indication that the character in the Flubber movies and the one in the Herbie movie is actually meant to be the same character. While I am fine with straight deletion, a redirect to the actor's article would also be fine, as Redirects are cheap. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • My name is John Pack Lambert, my middle name is Pack.
      • My apologies for the mistake. I fixed your name in my above comment. :) Rorshacma (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Severely lacking reliable sources, in or outside of the article. Dorama285 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Keenan Wynn. Any relevant content can always be merged there as well.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roots International Schools[edit]

Roots International Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article Roots Millennium Schools already exists that covers the subject of this article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability fulfilled and subject misinterpreted. WikiAviator (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Roots International Schools and Roots Millennium Schools are schools owned by different people although they are brothers to each other. They only share the same name, but are different schools. Their mother founded the main school "Roots School System" which has now been out-merged into 4 schools: Roots International, Roots Millennium, Roots IVY, Roots School System(original).Pakieditor (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have now added more reliable sources to the main article which was the main concern of the article according to me.Pakieditor (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Pakieditor These mentions are not enough to require two seperate articles on these subjects. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:04, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazna Khalid[edit]

Ghazna Khalid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a non-notable medical professional. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This doctor is indeed notable. I don't know why there isn't coverage by local news outlets (presumably due to political reasons), but there is significant coverage (whole articles that are not single mentions about her) and she is a person that has the notability to speak at UNICEF conferences and has been covered by international press including Washington Post, New Delhi Times and Handelsblatt, a German newspaper. Although all international articles cover her quote on the same issue, all these outlets are notable and she has a great significance in medicine to have the right to talk in front of world-class organisations and press. Sources: [18][19][20][21].WikiAviator (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:WikiAviator, these are passing mentions and cannot be used to establish notability. An article should be about the subject, not just mention thier quote. The only article like this is the one on the news, and that is not enough. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are not only looking at the number of mentions she gets, but the nature of the mentions. Here in the Washington Post mention, she is speaking at UNICEF, which means she is a key member of the board. Although she was mentioned once only, it does not mean the coverage is "trivial".WikiAviator (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd say the Washington Post article is trivial as far as being a reference for a biography of a living person goes. Since 99% of it is about a subject she is talking about and not specifically about her. She doesn't automatically become notable by association of the topic for being asked about it in the article. The only mention of her specifically says "Khalid, who has conducted extensive research into mother and child health and has written international papers on the subject." I would call that extremely trivial in relation to actually knowing anything about her biographically. Which is what her article is about, not risks to new borns in Pakistan. All the other articles, except for one, seem to be the same thing. Her speaking at UNICEF doesn't automatically make her notable either. As that would be notability through association. UNICEF has a list of speakers for any topic they have had speeches about. The lists are full of people who lack articles because they are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing, both in the article and in this AfD, appears to mostly be passing mentions and Ghazna never appears to be the focal point of the coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The news coverage is not about her. She's merely being interviewed about a topic in her field. It's not enough to satisfy WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casio F-series watches[edit]

Casio F-series watches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article meets point number 6 and 7 in Wikipedia criteria for deletion. Further more, its contents are based on original research citing only one source for the F-91W of which a separate page exists. I see no reason to keep this. It looks like a registry of F series watches which Wikipedia is not. If this article is to be kept then articles about every single series of watches Casio has made should be made like this as they deserve the same recognition as the F Series U1 quattro TALK 03:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as notability not established and it meets criteria for deletion. Per nom. WikiAviator (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:42, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibek Ojha[edit]

Bibek Ojha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No independent RS coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:07, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Stalmaster[edit]

Hal Stalmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly fails WP:NACTOR having no major roles outside being the lead of Johnny Tremain and both sources are databases. Before gave me only an interview (probably useful for facts to add to the movie article but we don't count interviews towards WP:GNG) and some mentions. Page creator was banned for persistent copyright violations. ミラP 03:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. His work in Johnny Trumain has been covered in numerous publications, including scholarly articles. He has been covered for his work as a talent agent as well. In addition to the sources provided above, here are some more high quality sources.
  1. York, Neil L. (Fall 2008). Son of liberty: Johnny Tremain and the art of making American patriots.(Report). Vol. 6(2). p. 422(26). {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (extensive analysis of his performance; peer reviewed)
  2. Lehman, Harry (Oct 22, 1971). Major Production Centers: On Camera Out West. Vol. 12(43). p. 10, 13. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (work as talent agent is main subject)
  3. Lehman, Harry (July 16, 1976). On Camera Out West. Vol. 17(29). p. 19. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (profiles his career as a talent agent)
  4. Richard M. Millard (June 29, 1979). As American as -- Well, as the Movies. p. 29. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) (article indicates a feature role in the Disney TV film The Swamp Fox; this would be another lead part towards satisfying WP:NACTOR)
Ultimately there is enough here to satisfy WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 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) 15:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power duo[edit]

Power duo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlike power trio, this term does not appear to be in common usage. And because of the existence of the unrelated Philippine band Power Duo, the best way to Google for notability appears to be like this—and I came up with nothing; in addition, the article just appears to arbitrarily list bands containing two members. It doesn't seem plausible to redirect this article to the aforementioned power trio article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This is an interesting rock music essay, but there don't seem to be any reliable sources to back it up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I an on the "edge" of weak keep, but no sources found on Google made me lean towards delete. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Original Research. While the phrase is in common use, I can't find any sources discussing the use of this phrase. Further, in searching I found the term power duo was used not just in the realm of music, but to refer to any partnership of two successful people such as two businessmen, publisher/writer team, producer/director team, song writing team, etc. It doesn't appear to have a consistent usage or be limited to one particular field.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 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. Whatever the case may be with respect to the individual albums, it is clear that there is no specific consensus for the deletion of any topic proposed in this bundled nomination. BD2412 T 05:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eerieconsiliation[edit]

Eerieconsiliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vague Premonition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
August (Elevator album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three albums by the same band, none with any strong claim of standalone notability per WP:NALBUMS or anywhere near enough strong reliable sourcing to clear WP:GNG in lieu. Albums are no longer automatically accepted as notable just because they were recorded by a notable artist, but must now clear stricter notability criteria (chart success, notable music awards, etc.) to warrant articles -- and even the band themselves have proven so poorly sourceable that they've now been redirected to their one independently notable member. One of these three articles is completely unreferenced, while the other two are referenced only to an AllMusic review -- which is a start, but not enough all by itself if it's the only reliable sourcing you can show. In a nutshell, to be notable enough for standalone articles under current standards, they need a lot more than just single-sourced verification that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to Rick White (musician) where they are already mentioned in the discography section. They could be viable search terms, but there does not appear to be enough coverage to support having them as independent articles. Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added four references. Can't speak to the other albums mentioned above, but two of the references for this album consider it to be a "4-star" album, for whatever that is worth (AllMusic and The Stranger). I started editing again in summer 2019, and haven't really weighed in on many of these; my personal bias is that Wikipedia's true value resides with its millions of short, legitimately sourced articles, which attempt to cover everything under the sun. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm advocating only for Vague Premonition... Caro7200 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, and the only thing there is a discography. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to Rick White (musician) until they become notable. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. One of the albums, Vague Premonition, appears to be notable. Given the range of notabilities, a WP:MULTIAFD is not appropriate here. It should be unbundled and renominated.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - referring to Eerieconsiliation. Reviewed in AllMusic (already there), and CMJ New Music Report. [22]. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Bearcat: Given that multiple editors are now contesting the notability of individual albums, this AFD is getting to be too complicated to parse through for a closer and is equally difficult to determine consensus. I would suggest withdrawing this nomination and re-nominating the albums separately for procedural reasons. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rick White (musician) instead of keeping as a standalone article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 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 Elzhi. (non-admin closure) buidhe 01:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Focus (EP)[edit]

Out of Focus (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

EP lacking coverage in reliable sources. I attempted to even verify the release date and found very little to back it up; it seems to be an EP that was not formally released at the time it was produced, and may have trickled out in several forms over the years. There just doesn't seem to be any real coverage to produce a sourced article. ~ mazca talk 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca talk 01:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM through lack of coverage. Hog Farm (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elzhi. There does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but since a viable redirect target already exists, I think a redirect may be more helpful for readers interested in this subject matter as opposed to an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:56, 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 keep. consensus is keep per WP:HEY (notability demonstrated per improvements in article since nomination) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warrowen massacre[edit]

Warrowen massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:Bacondrum nominated this for PROD on the following basis: "Nominate for deletion. Relies almost entirely on primary sources. These are sensational, colonial accounts, the language used in these primary sources demonstrates a strong bias and profound racism, secondary sources are needed. The office of the Protector of Aborigines is certainlty not a reliable source in this context. Boro Boro Willum, for example may not have existed at all, I can find no other source that mentions this tribe or one with a similar name, it's likely a colonial fiction."

The PROD was removed, but I strongly agree that it should be deleted. It's a thinly-sourced colonial rumour with offhand references on one or two pages in a couple of books, and it's telling that it needs to rely on a family's papers in a suburban library to flesh out its scant sourcing. The user who removed the PROD suggested that contrary sources could be added, but nobody's taken it seriously enough to argue with it: the rumour fundamentally lacks notability for a Wikipedia article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I strongly agree with everything The Drover's Wife has said.
  • Delete Certain claims seem to have little basis in reality, there is no record of one of the tribes mentioned ever having existed at all. The Protector of Aborigines is hardly a reliable source in this context, these kinds of exaggerated and fantastic colonial rumors or fantasies about Aboriginal people are common during the era. There needs to be more evidence the events actually took place. Bacondrum (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're stating something as fact, when there's just a single person's claim. Even if there was substantial coverage of Thomas's account, then that at most, that might, maybe, warrant a mention in his article, since the coverage is saying something about him. This article kinda shows why we shouldn't allow original research. The author of the article, has selectively gone through very old primary sources, and tried inserting selective "facts" from them, that disparage aboriginal Australians (in this article, and elsewhere). --Rob (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    • Update: Given changes in the article, I honestly don't know the answer. I'll leave it others with the knowledge and time to review the additional sources. --Rob (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He [Robinson] noted that because of the practical demise of the Yowengerre, their country had become scrubby because it was not periodically burned. This statement I suggest is very telling. It does not seem to me to be something that someone might make up to embellish a story ... I suggest this statement corroborates that something did happen to these people ... but what is another matter ... Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an extreme leap from "this group of people are no longer here and probably died" to "these people were murdered by other Aboriginal people at this specific location in Brighton". That it comes from a dubious source and makes claims that appear to be demonstrably false (that there's no evidence the group who did the alleged murdering ever existed) is further reason that that's a leap we shouldn't make, not least since it's not corroborated by anyone else besides vague later reports of local colonial rumour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
an extreme leap agreed. Aoziwe (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can the claims being made be verified? Are they noteworthy? I think the answer to both questions is no. Look at the way the article is phrased: "The Warrowen massacre was an apparent killing of Boongerong people by a group of Kurnai people"...Apparent? Did it happen or not? and "The main record of the incident is a second-hand account written in 1836 by William Thomas, the Aboriginal Protector" A second hand account of an event that "apparently" may or may not have occurred? This is an article based on sparse, archaic, secondhand accounts of colonial rumours and original research. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am regularly suspicious of "strongly agree" and other "strongly" !votes/assertions in AFDs, and have advised new AFD participants not to express themselves that way if they want to be taken as credible. Strong emotions suggest emotional involvement or other motivations. Here, I don't know the editors expressing their strong feelings, but the nature of their statements, plus the fact of this being about a "massacre", leads me to be skeptical. The term "massacre" is in fact one which often does evoke strong emotions, and I know that in other cases of true events that some term as "massacres", it has been a big issue whether to use the "massacre" version of name for a historical event, or whether to use a label avoiding the perhaps-judgmental nature of the term but perhaps white-washing the seriousness of a true event. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This really kinda suggests that your !vote below has more to do with your feelings about the nominators having strong opinions or some feelings about massacres in general than anything to do with the article, the topic or any arguments anyone actually made. No one is taking issue with the term "massacre" as you suggest here, but with the verifiability of the article given that the sourcing is extraordinarily flimsy, and trying to declare that 26 Google hits, with everything not already cited in the article being spam, as "a lot of hits" is real strange. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets stick to the article rather than whether you like the strength of other editors agreement, mate. Poor reasoning. Bacondrum (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I get a lot of hits when I search "Warrowen massacre -wikipedia". This is either a true story or it is an internet thing or it is something else, but it is something. There is factual information about this massacre event or whatever other term you want to use, including about whether it is regarded as a story which is possibly false in some ways, or whether it should be regarded as possibly or probably having occurred, or what. It is a reportable fact that historical coverage about this event exists (as some acknowledge above, setting aside whether or not it is secondary reporting or plausible or not). This is a story which has legs, in fact since 1834 or 1840 or so. Wikipedia should err on the side of reporting factual information, not on the side of suppressing information or avoiding uncomfortable ideas. It may be that the article should be refocused and renamed to focus more upon the history of the story of the massacre, through time since the event through present-day times, but that is a matter for editing not AFD. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just did that exact search to see what came up and got a total of 26 hits (!), with everything not already cited in the article being things like Wikipedia mirrors and random unrelated spam. I'm not sure how one forms the opinion that that is "something". The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many hits a search gets is irrelevant, look up Bigfoot, there will be lots of hits, doesn't mean Bigfoot is real. Sure, Bigfoot has a page, but Wikipedia does not claim the Bigfoot actually exists. We can't claim there was a massacre without significant evidence that it happened. Can the claims being made be verified? Are they noteworthy? Obviously not.
Also, I concur with The Drovers Wife (am I allowed to concur rather than strongly agree?), A google search turns up the primary source, the ANU work and a bunch of sites that mirror this article. There is a dearth of information relating to the claim. The claim is based entirely on one brief second hand account from the 19th century. Bacondrum (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Bigfoot comment - I think that's getting away from the issue of deletion (because a counter-argument from people who haven't read the sources might be that we should cover the "debate" as to whether it happened). Except that in this case there is no debate, because no one in reliable sources treats it seriously enough to bother, and one story from a questionable colonial source and a couple of passing mentions of an old rumour on one page of two books does not an encyclopedic article make. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, I find these arguments about search hits very silly. I'll try and stick to the topic. Bacondrum (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors may wish to consider:
    • a battle with the Borro borro willum (the Boon wurrung named for the Bushy Park people of Gippsland), see Aboriginal Flora and Fauna Names of Victoria: As extracted from early surveyors’ reports page 16
    • Bushy Park as in the squatter selection by Angus McMillan in Gippsland
FYI Aoziwe (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoziwe: I'm not sure of the relevance of those? The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues being given as the basis for the AfD seems to be that the people referred to as "boro boro willum" (the alleged perpetrators of the apparent massacre) did not exist. The first reference above seems to fairly strongly indicate that they did, and were in fact the indigineous people associated with the squatter selection Bushy Park in Gippsland. The second point above, as per the relevant article, corroborates that Bushy Park people were indigineous people from Gippsland. Hence one of the primary concerns for the validity of the article, and hence AfD, seems to no longer stand? (I have not yet decided on how to !vote on this one.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is refering to claims made by G.A. Robinson, Thomas' boss and close friend, and again it's second hand information he is relaying as an unreliable primary source - colonial rumour, and there is no evidence he is referring to the same events as described in this article - this is why we don't allow original research. Angus McMillan was responsible for the coldblooded murder of up to 450 Kurnai people (maybe more), with one of his party stating that he would shoot Aboriginal people with as "little remorse as I would a wild dog" - there are serious issues with referencing these primary colonial accounts. It would be original research based on the claims of unreliable witness's (one of whom had a very good reason to lie about killing Aboriginal people and may have well been covering up his own crimes, for which he could potentially have been hung). Bacondrum (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sole reliable secondary source we have barely mentions the events and is analysis of the dairies and reports by Thomas, it does not at any point claim his account is factual (if I recall correctly it warns against taking his account at face value). Where is the wider academic attention? Where are the academic claims that the events actually took place? Where is the historic and anthropological evidence? Where is the Aboriginal account? Aboriginal oral traditions have been shown repeatedly to be highly accurate. Why is it not mentioned in Bunurong histories, there are detailed histories of the Bunurong peoples - and the Kurnai? There are more than 3,000 Kurnai/Gunai people alive today with connections to this history, yet no one has ever mentioned these events. The scarcity of detail and evidence, the fact that the only people ever to have mentioned the Boro Boro Willum admit they are second hand reports, that those making these second hand reports all knew each other and had reason to lie about the subject (including the fact that what McMillan and his men had done was technically a capital offense) all make this look like a rumour rather than an actual event. There is a very real possibility that if there actually was a massacre it was more likely carried out by McMillan and his men. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The notes of the colonial recorders about the alleged incident have been written about in at least one secondary source. It there aren't enough sources it could easily veer over into Delete. Comments above along the lines of "the evidence is only some diary notes" is irrelevant.Boneymau (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • One colonial source recounting a story, written about in a very brief passing mention in a secondary source, is enough for a Wikipedia article now? If people took that approach consistently it'd be the largest expansion of Wikipedia notability criteria in its history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of apparent massacres in the early 19th century only have very sketchy contemporary documentation, even something as much written-about as the Convincing_Ground_massacre. I'm focusing on the supposed event being discussed in reliable secondary sources as an indicator of notability. And after thinking more about it, I probably would flip over to Delete unless there were further secondary sources that discussed it. Boneymau (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire basis for the article is a second hand account offered in 1836 by William Thomas, the Aboriginal Protector. The following are Thomas's retelling of a story that was told to him by an unknown party:

blacks remember the awful affair at Warrowen (place of sorrow) near where Brighton now stands, where in 1834 nearly a quarter of the Western Port blacks were massacred by the Gippsland blacks who stole up on them before dawn of day.

and

"no monuments whatever further than devices on trees where any great calamity have befallen them. On a large gum tree in Brighton, on the estate of Mr McMillan was a host of blacks lying as dead carved on the trunk for a yard or two up. The spot was called Woorroowen or incessant weeping. Near this spot in the year 1833 or 4, the Gippsland blacks stole at night upon the Western Port or Coast tribe and killed 60 or 70 of them.

So, the question is: Is Thomas's secondhand WP:PRIMARY account enough to WP:VERIFY that the events occurred? Bacondrum (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions and these are serious ones asked in the best of good faith. Yes, one can trace back the vast majority, if not all, of the secondary references to the single Thomas source (STS). WP does not allow OR in articles. However, there is no source that I am aware of that documents this STS provenance research outside of WP. Hence the first question is, "Are we allowed to use (our) OR to invalidate an article?" There are a non trivial number of secondary references to the STS, which do or do not explicitly mention the STS. Secondary references are normally used as a sign of notability, reliability, and verifiablity. So the second question is, "How do we go against this WP norm (without resorting to OR)?". There are invocations above of the unreliability of the "protectors". There is no mention of their unreliability generally in the article Protector of Aborigines, or specifically in George Augustus Robinson or William Thomas (Australian settler), and in fact the latter, if anything, paints a very good picture of the subject's legacy. Thomas went to the effort to learn two aboriginal languages. This would place him in much better postions to understand them and hear their stories much better than most at the time. So the third qustion is, "Are there IRS to show that either Robinson or Thomas are unreliable in reporting aboriginal matters at any time?" Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't have focused on the primary source so much. We are really scrounging for secondary source here, there's no real coverage in secondary sources, just brief mentions. I don't think what we have is sufficient to demonstrate WP:NOTE or to WP:VERIFY the claims. To be clear, if there was more than a couple of sources or the claims stated in secondary sources were made more authoritatively I'd have no objection to including these "apparent" events. I certainly don't deny pre-colonial violence existed. Bacondrum (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, lol. I do reckon that notability and veracity should be demonstrated before it is added, rather than having to disprove in order to remove. But I'll leave it alone until the discussion is done. Bacondrum (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no probs:) as i thought would happen, another editor as re-removed the entry, i too will leave alone, salut. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the article and added more sources. For mine the only issue would be WP:SIGCOV, but I would give the article the benefit of the doubt given the significance and that there is enough material to build a decent article. If not the contents should be incorporated into various related articles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely now that the article has been essentially completely rewritten. There are also still more references to be had. Secondary coverage is sustained, at least from 1878 to 2014. One could also argue that the Thomas and Robinson were actually secondary documenters, of the indigineous oral record. To say they are primary is to discount any knowledge history of the first peoples. (Reliability or accuracy might be another matter.) Robinson does refer to the people who gave him the information by name. There is some doubt about the number of people it seems, with numbers ranging from 60 to 77, and Smyth 1878 possibly thinks Thomas exagerated numbers. However, none of the historians, academics, or researchers that I could find seem to have questioned that some degree of mass killing took place. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the re-write. Notability is demonstrated here, and the article does a good job of explaining the evidence for this issue. I note in particular that high quality sources discuss this event, with the fairly recent ANU Press work stating it occurred. If other reliable sources say that the massacre is a fabrication, this should be included. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite has clearly established notability.--Staberinde (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep I admit I was wrong about this, it looked like a highly dubious colonial rumor to begin with, but I'm happy to admit I was wrong - there appears to be more to it. The article is much improved, changes demonstrate notability. Nice work Ivar and Aoziwe. Bacondrum (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a thanks to Bacondrum, and for reinstating it to List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 1 March 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. It's up to editors whether and where to redirect this also. Sandstein 15:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmates in the opening[edit]

Checkmates in the opening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is an indiscriminate dump of mostly non-notable chess games, sourced almost exclusively to the user-generated site chessgames.com. IP editor has significantly expanded the article, but has also added a lot of dross, including many non-notable games by non-notable players, and has insisted on inserting own editorial opinion by adding "!!" or "??" to moves without citing a source (see Chess annotation symbols.) This has got out of hand, it's ok to cite a couple of examples in Checkmate but not to indiscriminately dump games found on chessgames.com. Merge with Checkmate suggested, with only about 3 examples. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Correct, it's an indiscriminate dump of mostly non-notable chess games. Some points of clarification:
  • The chessgames.com site is used extensively in chess-related articles as a handy presentation of game scores, but the presence of a game score in that site is not a guarantee or even a particularly strong indicator of notability.
  • Some checkmates in the opening that are genuinely notable are Scholar's mate, Fool's mate, and Légal Trap, all of which I was taught as a beginning chess player 50 years ago. A list article that includes some checkmates in the opening, but also some other notable chess opening sequences, is List of chess traps. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two candidates for redirect, List of chess traps and Checkmate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:08, 1 March 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) 10:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Walker[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Troy Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An example of WP:BLP1E. His unsuccessful lawsuit against SpongeBob SquarePants received media coverage at the time, but the person himself has no notability beyond that single event. On his own, he fails WP:NAUTHOR: he has not been involved in any professional or well-known comics or television cartoons. Sanchez.donatelli (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the lack of reliable sources addressing Walker directly and in detail. I only found mentions in coverage of the lawsuit. The article was also created by a promotional single-purpose account years ago and still no reliable source has written about him. Capcapandgengen (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:08, 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 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. MBisanz talk 22:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avadim Health[edit]

Avadim Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company only has one product that isn't even notable and it doesn't have wide coverage anywhere. The only articles about it seem to be press releases or things about an IPO that didn't seem to happen, but wouldn't be notable if it did. Plus, the article was clearly created for the purpose of being an advert. Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete potential advert. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:07, 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. MBisanz talk 22:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Lines[edit]

Phil Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bio has multiple independent sources but the article subject is a senior media manager and the refs really consist of PR from him about his next appointment. Given his position I’m not sure this really demonstrates notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the coverage is particularly in-depth and two of the sources don't even focus on him. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 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 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. MBisanz talk 22:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haier Black Pearl[edit]

Haier Black Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:07, 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. MBisanz talk 22:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White T[edit]

AfDs for this article:
White T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Movie. I was able to find about 2 sources from a google search - none of them are reliable. Ultimately, this was just an imdb clone. I deleted the plot summary, which is credited to the production company on imdb. It was also blatantly promotional and POV. Without that, it's just a list of actors in a minor film.

Note: this was previously nominated for deletion, and it was user-fied. That draft was never improved, and this was created, with essentially the same content - that is, imdb copy-pasting. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost nothing out there except an entry in IMDB. Surprisingly there was one short (and scathing) review by freelance reviewer in Village Voice but I don't think one review pushes this to the point of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 22:53, 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) 10:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going To Bat Foundation[edit]

Going To Bat Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable charity. it's written like a promotion and contains no third party sourcing of the organization itself... most of the references relate to the career of a non-notable minor league baseball player. Spanneraol (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Only 1 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost certainly promotional, the article creator added this article, made this edit to Mission Viejo High School (which lists one of the baseball players involved with this organization), and this edit which added the same player to another article. Ghits tend to focus on this player and his association with his foundation but they all seem a bit like puff pieces. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and promotional Dorama285 (talk) 19:56, 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 redirect to Paragon Publishing. MBisanz talk 22:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Advance[edit]

Total Advance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a magazine that existed between 1999 and 2002. Unable to find any relevant independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:06, 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. MBisanz talk 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets, Fangs and Dinner at 8[edit]

Bullets, Fangs and Dinner at 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable film, not a single rs that discusses it in depth. Fails WP:NFILM. Awards are also not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pert nom. Though the article looks like it has a lot of sources, actually looking through them reveals that they are a collection of non-reliable sources, press-releases, and local coverage only. There do not appear to be any reviews in actual reliable, secondary sources, and the claimed awards are not notable awards. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Film Week[edit]

AfDs for this article:
San Diego Film Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per my exact same reasoning last time: This is of dubious notability at best and has been discretely spammed throughout wikipedia for the last two years but I can find no significant coverage and what little coverage is found, is hyper local. No evidence this meets WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG and is just a minor regional event. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete upholding the previous AfD. Looks like a user that has now been blocked gamed the system a bit creating a similar article for a different year and then moving the article to this location. That new page was also tagged for notability concerns via WP:NPP. Despite the WP:REFBOMB in the lead, I don’t really think all those pass GNG. -2pou (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources that aren't just the festival's own website are just local coverage, or listings of upcoming events. There does not seem to be any kind of substantial coverage of this film festival in anything beyond local sources. The article tries to claim notability by asserting that a notable actor presented, but as notability is not inherited, this does not actually confer any notability to the festival itself. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article for event of dubious notability. Dorama285 (talk) 18:07, 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. Doesn't seem to be consensus that current sourcing is anything other than routine Fenix down (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad Raad[edit]

Sajad Raad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTY. WP:PROD removed by creator. OuvreLeChien (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some of the Arabic sources meet GNG - I'm not sure what the concern here is. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main issue like the nominator has said is the WP:NFOOTBALL as the Iraq league isn't part of the WP:FPL league pool and the references that have been put on the page is WP:ROUTINE. HawkAussie (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article are quite routine - but there seems to be no end of media coverage of him, especially about his possible trade to a Jordanian team in the last few weeks search. How do some of these not meet GNG? Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No thoughts from anyone? I added a Jordanian source to the article. Players who aren't notable don't get foreign coverage. Nfitz (talk) 05:24, 29 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. MBisanz talk 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Drivers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hell Drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This covers several stunt driving shows whose titles include the words "Hell Drivers" and are weakly, if at all, connected to each other. The original and most notable, Lucky Teter and His Hell Drivers, is covered in Lucky Teter. None of the shows have their own articles, and are only partial matches, so not appropriate for a disambiguation page either. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is zero.TH1980 (talk) 05:21, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_February_22&oldid=943448544"