Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 February 25 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 13:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Ukraine relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Malta–Ukraine relations (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)

Last AfD 7 years ago was no consensus. I could not find significant coverage of these relations to meet WP:GNG. Most of the coverage is multilateral. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Mitte27 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The first source by Mitte27 is an article about Malta in Ukrainian (sic!); other sources are just minor news, no chance to pass GNG with this stuff. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In article about Malta in Ukrainian see part "УКРАЇНСЬКО-МАЛЬТІЙСЬКІ ВІДНОСИНИ З 1991 р.". --Mitte27 (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I see: then keep, probably. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - LibStar, have you checked for the sources in the Ukrainian language? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Mitte27. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 3 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 speedy keep per WP:BMB (WP:SK#4). If someone else wants to nominate this for deletion, feel free to do so. SoWhy 11:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tryfon Gavriel[edit]

Tryfon Gavriel (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)

Subject is not anywhere notable, and the only source is from a self published Q and A website.SurpriseandConquer (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply not true - I have even done an IMA on Reddit which was commented on quite a bit here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1usndf/iama_kingscrusher_chess_entrepreneur_and_very/
My Youtube channel has over 105k Subscribers making it into the top 20 most popular Youtube channels for Chess. My Twitch channel has over 15k followers making it into the top 20 most popular for Chess.
Further, I am a FIDE CM titled Chess Player - and have won a few tournaments in real life as well as qualified for the British Chess Championship main event one year, scoring just below 50%.
But if you think I am not that notable, I will mention it on my social media. --Kingscrusher (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kingscrusher: Are you suggesting that you made this article? It's poor taste (and generally against wp:coi) to edit articles about oneself. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 06:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrxBrx:) No I did not start the article - I only discovered it recently doing a Google search. I was quite happy to see the article and wondered why it couldn't be left. Regarding editing the article - yes I thought that was okay to contribute something to it. That seems reasonable to me to make any informed corrections etc. I am not entirely sure why it would not be. But I certainly did not start the article or aware of the person who initiated it.


  • Comment statement above is even more reason to delete the article. article is apparently entirely written by it's subject. Whether or not this AFD stays open depends on whether or not the article gets speedliy deleted.SurpriseandConquer (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is a false accusation made by an anonymous person SurpriseandConquer - I certainly did not create the article nor do I know the person who did. But check the revision history for yourself. I did some edits as the revision history shows though - and I thought I was entitled to. --Kingscrusher (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Checking the anonymous persomn it indicates for them now:

"This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of KingofGangsters (talk · contribs · logs), and it has been blocked indefinitely." - which I am glad there is checking because essentially it is a false accusation that I initiated the article. I do not even know the person that did. --Kingscrusher (talk) 10:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakimichan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sakimichan (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:NCREATIVE, and tagged with questionable notability since 2016. Of the existing sources, most are promotional links to things like her Patreon, or a game she did art for. The only independent coverage was inclusion of her art in a few clickbait listicles. I didn't find significant coverage in my BEFORE, just more listicles that mainly served to link to the subject's website. The article does get 5k views a month, but I think that is an artifact of folks searching for her porn. Bottom line: popular, but not notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, now that I've filed this, I see that there was a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakimichan, whose outcome was no consensus. The sources Vanamonde found (back in 2016) were the same ones I found in my before, I think most of them too poor quality to count towards notability. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article itself could be better. It is true that she fails WP:CREATIVE. But she passes GNG. The Google news hits are mostly gaming and pop culture blog mentions. However with those results are items like this short Cosmopolitan write up, a very brief mention in the NY Times, this middling Japanese "news site" and this peru.com item. I am on page 17 of the search results, and they are all related to the subject, although the quality varies a lot. Coverage is in many languages. The very consistent and frequent republication of her images is to some degree significant coverage of her work. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Daily Dot mention is decent.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This artist is well known, with a large following. For those who follow her art, she is known for more that just her erotic art. In December 2017 Deviantart gave sakimichan recondition for her community involvement and engagement ("...producing a plethora of tutorials, aiding others in character development.") Deviousness Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.I.S. (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 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 merge to Vishva Hindu Parishad. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Students Council[edit]

Hindu Students Council (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:ORGCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. Only passing mentions are available. DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable organization. Disagree with merge as the organization is independent of the VHP.Pectoretalk 08:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really independent. The article says: The HSC was set up in 1990 with support from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, a constituent member of the right-wing Sangh Parivar. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Timeline of Calgary history. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary[edit]

List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary (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 incidents of civil disobedience in a single city, not demonstrating any collective notability as a group. Virtually every city in existence has experienced some greater or lesser number of "civil unrest" incidents in its history, without necessarily needing an encyclopedia article to list them all for posterity. I can find no evidence that any other city on the entire planet has a comprehensive list of all its civil unrest events like this, and I can think of no credible reason why Calgary alone should qualify for special treatment that other cities aren't getting. Individual incidents here are certainly sourced, but none of the sources are conferring any sort of collective group notability on "the overall history of civil unrest in Calgary" as a concept. There's just no reason why Calgary's historical timeline of riots and civil unrest would be inherently more notable than Toronto's or Vancouver's or Montreal's or Boston's or Chicago's or London's or Mumbai's or Johannesburg's or Rome's or Paris's or New York's or Rio de Janeiro's historical timelines of riots and civil unrest. Note as well that the first discussion was held 12 years ago and closed no consensus, so it did not establish any binding precedent that this type of content was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (note: this comment is seriously tongue in cheek.), article obviously created by an Edmontonian or one that sympathies with that city, see Battle of Alberta. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Timeline of Calgary history. Agree with nom: 18 nn events of the vague definition of "civil unrest" over more than a century is not defining or warranting such a unique article under LISTN. Reywas92Talk 01:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Most of these events seem sufficiently notable that they should be included somewhere. They can be merged elsewhere, or this list can be kept. I have no preference between the two. Pburka (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why mainly just Calgary? To me, this implies that whatever civil disobediences that have or assumed to have occurred in Calgary can be labeled as riots, but other possible forms of said civil disobediences in other Canadian cities or regions are omitted outright. It is, in my assumption, that this article was possibly made with the intent of using general bias against Calgary for unknown reasons. To me, this article does not follow the spirit of neutrality, as per Wikipedia rules and regulations. Rockies77 (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rockies77: the same article was created for Omaha, Nebraska. I really, really doubt these were created as some passive aggressive insult by someone who secretly hates Omaha and Calgary. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An extensively sourced and well-formatted article that IMHO would be a relevant addition for each city. The creator of this article also created List of riots and civil unrest in Omaha, Nebraska. Both articles have existed since 2008. I don't see how it's not notable. We should applaud this, not delete it. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge a few entries to Timeline of Calgary history (which I've trimmed). No need for two overlapping lists, especially since this list contains a lot of unnotable incidents (e.g. the 1993 student walkout). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 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 Lynx (web browser). KaisaL (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dickey[edit]

Thomas Dickey (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)

According to the Discussion on the Talk Page, the software developer is not notable to warrant an article, as there are not enough reliable secondary sources about him. Currently there is a redirect to one of his 9 software projects on Wikipedia. The article Lynx (web browser) doesn't contain any information about the developer. I suggest to remove this redirect, as it serves no purpose. Arved (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree, there is not enough to support an article and redirect isn't helpful. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this editor has been checkuser blocked. ——SN54129 09:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Not sure either the nom or the two delete !voters make particularly strong arguments for their cases. I note that the lynx article has mentioned Dickey for over eleven years, and a redirect seems not unreasonable.
    I agree that the original article was rightly overwritten: A ~20 word, two sentence, self-sourced stub does not a BLP make. But redirects, as they say, are notably WP:CHEAP, and I'm interested to learn why the WP:READER, searching for information on the guy, shouldn't be taken to the nearest thing he's known for... ——SN54129 09:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On edit: adding firm redirect !vote, now that the article has been restored. ——SN54129 12:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, what is the nearest thing. He has several projects with articles on Wikipedia, and in my opinion ncurses or xterm are much more important than lynx. Arved (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per my original edit on this article and SN54129 above. Couldn't find any references, but if he's mentioned somewhere else then why not redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Not independently notable but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Plausible search term that should lead to notable project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. If the article doesn't mention him, fix that instead. --Jayron32 16:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as essentially a disambiguation page. He maintains (and has contributed to in essential ways) several pieces of notable software. If they were books, then WP:NCREATIVE would certainly apply, and I think something similar should hold here. I agree that there's not enough for much of an article, but as Arved says, xterm and ncurses are also significant software, so redirecting to lynx is not indicated. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:00, 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 delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Suicide Story[edit]


My Suicide Story (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 web series, has never received any meaningful coverage and the few RS in the article are hyper local, the rest are spammy black-hat SEO pay-for-publishing and thus unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This series is notable and has received coverage from multiple news outlets and has also been reviewed. You just nominated 2 of my pages for deletion, 1 for speedy deletion, which should at least be put to a vote. It seems there may be a bias here Hidden Hills Editor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am bias against black hat SEO pay for publishing sites, yes and the reason why I came across this was due to the fact that the article contains four of them. Not a single one of these provide the type of in-depth coverage that is needed, 2 are hyper local and the rest are just outright unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest here. The reason you came across this page was because after you nominated John Romaniello for speedy deletion - which should have been put up to a vote to let the Wikipedia community decide - you apparently searched through my history to find any related articles. There is more to this than being against "black hat SEO sites" you seem to have a personal bias against this person and are attempting to have this article removed due to its relation to said subject after it was already reviewed by a new page reviewer. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) {{[reply]

Comment on content not contributors. I have done nothing of the sort and I fail to see how one is related to the other. I came across the other article while doing NPP and came across this whilst searching from sources here. You're welcome to add more sources to dispute the deletion but you need to provide reliable sources that have a history of editorial oversight and fact checking. Those included on this article fail that criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles are related as the subject, John Romaniello, was featured in the 5th episode of this series. I am well aware of the nature of how to support my arguments here, and I am not "commenting on contributors" as opposed to content, I am simply acknowledging the fact that you nominated this page for deletion immediately after nominating John Romaniello for an unfair speedy deletion. Seems fishy that you failed to recognize that he was featured in the series and deleted this specific page out of all the others that I created. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you should be commenting on the content and providing the reliable sources you claim exist rather than commenting on what you think is my motive. Also WP:SIGN your edits. Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that it was reviewed by another reviewer is irrelevant, it doesn't mean it's exempt from AFD and it also begs the question whether they did any critical evaluation of the sources, but again, not relevant what happened previously. The only thing that matters at AFD is discussing the notability of a subject and whether reliable sources exist. In this case, they don't. Praxidicae (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable and clearly backed by black-hat SEO work (almost every source is to literal fake news). I'm a bit disturbed this was reviewed by anyone without them catching this error. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also @Hidden Hills Editor: don't WP:CANVASS editor(s) to support you here. That tends to backfire spectacularly... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also fails WP:WEBCRIT. Ifnord (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Coal: I am still semi-new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn the culture of defending my arguments here without violating any of the Wiki laws, so if my arguments seem to be "canvassing" it is not my intention, I am simply trying to defend my position. I try to educate myself before engaging in arguments, however it just seemed evident that this user was nominating due to a bias. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hidden Hills Editor: I see no bias here on the part of the nominator. What I do see are a hoard of crap black-hat PR sources you put in this article to make it look okay. That to me is more unacceptable than your supposed canvassing. So, I recommend you back away from this and let the community decide the article's fate. And, in the future, please actually check your sources before you write an article. Sources like this one and this one are especially not acceptable, and should not have been added anywhere on our site. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hidden Hills Editor: What bias issue do you believe is involved here. Evidence of such bias would be useful moving forward, additionally. Nick (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: My inclusion of said "black-hat PR sources" are that of negligence and not intention. I am not worried about this article being deleted, if I violated the community by creating an article that is unacceptable, I want to learn from the mistake so I do not make it again. This was one of my first ever created articles and I simply searched google for anything to support it, I never tried to make it look okay, I simply have to learn what is considered a "black-hat" article and what is not. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Thank you for expanding on this for me. What I felt was biased was that the user initially nominated the page John Romaniello for speedy deletion, as opposed to putting it up to a vote. The user then nominated this page for deletion, which features the same individual (John Romaniello) in episode 5 of the series. It just seemed strange to me that both pages associated with him were nominated for deletion and that the latter was nominated for speedy as opposed to a vote as this page was. Again, if I am wrong here forgive me as I am trying to learn the etiquette of page deletions and arguing here. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been a deletion discussion about that article. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there was a discussion about John Romaniello, as the outcome of that was deletion, unless there's a significant change (and looking at what was deleted, there unfortunately isn't) then deletion can be made easier through the 'speedy deletion' process. We would tend to encourage editors here to follow incoming and outgoing links from a page they mark for deletion, to see (a) if deletion may be avoided or if circumstances have changed, and (b) to see if there are additional pages which may require deletion or further discussion. It's entirely normal and largely expected to see an editor like Praxidicae following links and upon finding a related article which also requires discussion on its future, filing a deletion request so that discussion can take place. I'll take care of the John Romaniello deletion shortly, if it hasn't already been deleted, so that there's one less thing to concern us moving forward. Nick (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Thank you for taking the time to explain this process a bit more in depth. As I stated earlier, I am not as seasoned as the majority of you here. I do have good intentions as an editor, I just have to learn the process more. Also, I wasn't aware that there was already a page deleted for John Romaniello, or I would have never attempted to create one, so now I know for future reference to check to see if there was ever a page deleted before creating one. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fake news has been removed from the article,and there's nothing left. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is clearly nothing left to assert notability after removal of spam. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think it's all been said. This fails GNG. Waggie (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable web series. Nothing noteworthy about it. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:04, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skybridge AirOps[edit]

Skybridge AirOps (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 short-lived, defunct airline that - at its height - operated two (2) 30-seat prop planes. No sources other than directory listings. BEFORE fails to redeem. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The news references I found mentioned the company only in passing. As the airline is defunct, I don't see how it could achieve notability. Ifnord (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, with no prejudice toward re-creation should the rumors prove true. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS R2[edit]


Canon EOS R2 (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 sources are rumor sites. Wikipedia does not make articles on rumors, per WP:CRYSTAL. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If deleted, the inbound redirect Canon EOS Mark II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should also be deleted. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is not uncommon for information about camera's to be leaked to the media before the camera is released. This is the case for the Canon EOS R2. The article should stay in Wikipedia. Blockhouse321 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blockhouse321: You... you didn't read WP:CRYSTAL, did you? Specifically, 5. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, It is not uncommon for information about camera's to be leaked to the media before the camera is released. This is the case for the Canon EOS R2. The fact that the practice is common doesn't mean that examples of the practice are of encyclopedic value. Mere rumours and leaks don't hack it. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as suggested by Hoary. Probably WP:TOOSOON. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete product may be become notable in future but is not as of now. GargAvinash (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tesshin Okada[edit]

Tesshin Okada (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 fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOX Less Unless (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely fails NBOX but passes GNG. A google search brings up plenty of articles in many different languages. A boxer always receives significant coverage when an injury sustained in the ring results in death. [1][2][3][4] – 2.O.Boxing 17:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that fall under WP:1E? Passing notability requires more than a death event. Ifnord (talk) 19:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi[edit]

Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi (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 Indian religious scholar. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi is the supreme leader of the larges and greatest Muslim movement named Tablighi Jamaat. Requesting to delete this article by User:Authordom, the contributor shows his ignorance about Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi, Islam, Tablighi Jamaat and its present activities.

References:

Keep My conclusion, after looking at the above deletion nominator's recent pattern of nominations at both Afd - India and at Afd - Pakistan, is that he's very biased against all other Islamic religious groups other than his own Barelvi group or school of thought. All one has to do is to look at his recent deletion nominations. He has been nominating for deletion all other Sunni Islam groups – Tablighi Jamaat, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and Deobandi Group. A clear and obvious case of WP:PPOV where he has been pushing his Personal Point Of View and showing intolerance for other people's religious beliefs. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this is the leader of a large Muslim group in India who has many followers and it is not correct to state it as "non notable Indian religious scholar". He seems to be known in Bangladesh as well judging from this [5].--DreamLinker (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to draftspace. The subject of the article is notable. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ngrewal1 and DreamLinker. @Authordom: can you please mention a criteria for the nomination? A mere statement like Non notable Indian religious scholar does not help. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:14, 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 speedy delete per G5 Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nallamilli Venkat Satyanarayan Reddy[edit]

Nallamilli Venkat Satyanarayan Reddy (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 claim of notability is that he is the MD of the Hyderabad metro, and was key in the development of it. And he received an award from a sketchy organization. The development of a metro line would be an impressive task IF it was first in the country, or the largest. It is neither, compared to what the Delhi metro(one of the largest in the world) is. There are about 8 cities in India with a working metro , and there is nothing unique about the hyderabad metro that makes the person notable. Daiyusha (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please close this AFD. As per the SPI for Chutrandi, this page is the creation of a WP:DUCK puppet. Already tagged for CSD. Please speedy close this AfD and delete. -- JavaHurricane 17:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JavaHurricane: Its funny how you're casually using the username of the sockpuppet, it literally translates to pu**y-h*e. I can't help but laugh reading the name being used in the formal context of AfD. Apologies, but Please take note of the meaning before using it again xD. Daiyusha (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the name contains an expletive, but I have to link to the SPI to indicate that the creator is a sockpuppet. -- JavaHurricane 07:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 13:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Zubair ul Hassan[edit]

Maulana Zubair ul Hassan (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 Tablighi Jamaat worker. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maulana Zubair ul Hassan was the emir (top leader) of Tablighi Jamaat in India, when he died on 18 March 2014. He was NOT an ordinary worker of Tablighi Jamaat as the deletion nominator is trying to imply above. Upon his death, nearly 20,000 people attended his funeral in New Delhi and major Indian newspapers and Islamic news sources – The Indian Express (newspaper), Two Circles.net and The Siasat Daily carried his obituaries, which are used as references at the current Wikipedia article above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maulana was a notable figure of Tableeghi Jamat. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is notable inside of his movement only. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the coverages seems WP:ROUTINE to me however, having quoted by national media of both Pakistan and India does show notability to some extent. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject also covered by Urdu media.23:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I seems that only like "he is attended in a function" or "he is inaugurated a madrasa". No other coverages to pass at least the WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:12, 3 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi[edit]

Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
मौलाना इफ्तेखारूल हसन (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Indian Islamic scholar. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The refs in the article itself are enough to keep this article about an Islamic preacher and religious leader. Major Indian Newspaper Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran, Hindustan Dainik have done several articles meeting wP:SIGCOV on this subject. let me provide some major quotes. [6] says "he was a major islamic scholar and a messenger of religous unity", "lakhs of people from Shamli and adjoining districts joined the funeral procession".[7] Hindustan Dainik says, "lakhs of people following Islam and other religions joined the funeral",[8] "his funeral procession was attended by the local administration, politicians and a huge crowd from several neighbouring districts", [9] says "Mourning ceremonies were even conducted by Hindu leaders in Delhi", [10] says "he had more than 50 thousand students over his lifetime", "Has several lakh followers in India and abroad", "established more than 25 Islamic schools" Dainik Jagran says that politicians used to visit him for meetings [11]. All these are clear evidence that the subject is easily passing wP:GNG. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC) (updated ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. I respectfully disagree. Having searched the net for references in the languages I know, I am convinced that he fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the argument presented above by User:DBigXray. There is lots of news coverage for this person. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suggest that the article not be deleted. I'll add more Urdu resources to it. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DBigXray: the sources you mentioned are local news coverages. Is there any reference from any national media? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All these newspapers are reputed national dailies with considerable reach in multiple states. You can click on each newspapers wikilink to read their Wiki article⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep single argument of User:DBigXray should be enough to keep this.16:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 08:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi[edit]

Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi (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 Muslim scholar from India. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 16:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mawlana Inaamul Hasan was amir of Tabligh Jamat. Can't be called non notable Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the emirship of an Indian Islamist movement is notable? ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 18:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi was the Chief leader or Amir of Tablighi Jamaat from 1965 to 1995 – for 30 years. No doubt he was notable. This article also has 4 working and updated references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was a emir of the movement. I think the emirship of a movement isn't reason of notability. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 18:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was office holder of an Islamist organisation. But unable to pass even the WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 18:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is notable person, being Amir of Tablighi Jamat should engough for WP:GNG. 16:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Why he is notable? ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 18:14, 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 delete. Consensus clearly agrees with Eggishorn's deletion rationale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Feichtner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ferdinand Feichtner (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 is a long nomination statement, so please bear with me. The prior AfD nomination was closed only 19 days ago so renominating this soon would normally be out of process. That AfD discussion, however, was marred by some significant negative behavior and false claims and reached no conclusion. A new AfD after a two-week cooldown period may reach a conclusion without repeat violations. A request on the article talk page for options to improve the article per WP:ATD has produced no input for a similar period.

The article subject has no real evidence of notability under the WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG, including WP:NSOLDIER. In the previous AfD this was disputed on the basis that there were reliable sources cited. Closer inspection, however, demonstrated that all the information in the article that is actually about the article subject and not merely background is sourced entirely to one source: Ferdinand Feichtner himself. Of the 149 citations in the text, there are only six sources that are not taken directly from Feichtner's post-war debriefings and these six do not mention Feichtner. Removing all the self-supplied information leaves a ludicrous mess of an article. No other significant coverage in reliable sources was advanced in the discussion or is apparent in the article or in searches.

There are other problems. The article violates WP:NPOV since it only presents the article subject through the subject's own words without any attempt to contextualize his work or actions, without any analysis or synthesis with other sources, without any attempt to remove Feichtner's biases (see, e.g., the section headed "Romanian treachery late summer 1944"), without any attempt to select significant events or contributions from the ordinary life of a soldier and officer (see, e.g., "Change of Company Officers", "Transfer of evaluation section winter 1941", and many other examples), and without any attempt to remove excessive detail (just look at the ToC). For context, this biography is 150,716 bytes for a field-grade officer with no significant distinctions and doubtful significant contributions to WWII. The article for Chesty Puller, the most-decorated Marine in American history, clocks in at a mere 45,702 bytes.

Finally, there was a claim advanced that he did meet NSOLDIER #4 via being Chief Signals Officer for Luftwaffe South, which sounds impressive. Until you read through Feichtner's own words and find out that this was a relatively minor command. An American equivalent (and Feichtner's opposite number) would be G-6 for the Fifteenth Air Force and we have no articles for any US officer whose terminal assignment was such a position and had no other notable contributions. The article's other claims of significant contributions range from doubtful to absurd. Consider the claim that: ""Feichtner worked out the fundamental principles of secure ciphers and encipherment," an achievement that seems to elude cryptographers today and which is missing from our History of cryptography article.

Because there is no way to save this article and there is no actual evidence of notability, I am re-nominating for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom has, with an unusual degree of precision, identified that this article clearly does not meet WP:NSOLDIER. So, we're left with WP:GNG. The article is incredibly detailed, as one might expect in an autobiography, but that really doesn't meet the criteria for significant and reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Many soldiers have had interesting experiences but we have notability requirements because not every one deserves an encyclopedia article. Ifnord (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the biographical aspects of this article are drawn entirely from an autobiography published by the US armed forces following debrief, which is primary and cannot be considered reliable as it is not independent of the subject. If the subject had significant coverage in multiple sources independent of his own account, I would have expected to see it here. A Google Books search indicates that such sources do not exist in English at least, although they may exist in German, is seems unlikely given his relatively minor role and low rank of major. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on basis of comprehensive reasons given by Eggishorn. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG because it is WP:PRIMARY with no WP:SIGCOV, not WP:V and breaches WP:NOFULLTEXT. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent, comprehensive rationale given and by my comment on the previous AfD. Fails GNG. buidhe 14:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went through every Google hit for Ferdinand Feichtner. The only independent Reliable Source I find to support Notability is The Third Reich is Listening: Inside German codebreaking 1939–45.[12] It mostly recounts Feichtner's own words, but there's potentially enough there to qualify as one usable Reliable Source. We'd still need more good sources to establish Notability. (Feel free to ping me if anyone does find additional solid sources.) Maybe the subject will be more Notable in the future, but the sources don't appear to exist today. Alsee (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He was clearly an intelligent man, but unfortunately he was simply an excellent Nazi solder who served on the losing side. I really hate to say this but if he would have been a war criminal, in addition to being a superb radio communications commander, he probably would be worthy of an article. Feichtner's words alone, without more reputable independent corroborating sources, are not enough to justify keeping the article.♥Golf (talk)
  • Keep. Why the rush to delete this article when the recommended wait time is two months? Feichtner was two down from Goering reporting to Martini. There are few secondary sources as much of the material related to German Signals Intelligence has only become available in the last five years. Sure, the article requires reduction to meet criteria, however this will take time. As to notability, Christian Jennings says, “In the TICOM Series’ Seabourn Report into the Luftwaffe’s signals intelligence he was described by the US Air Force authors thus: “By general acclaim of his fellow officers he is credited with having made the greatest single individual contribution to the development and subsequent success of the SIS of the Luftwaffe." You would expect then that someone so described, a Chief Signals Officer ultimately with the rank of Colonel of Luftwaffe in the west, would rate a mention. Neils51 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "rush" to renominate was clearly laid out in the nomination statement. You are, of course, free to disagree with that reasoning but to pretend it is not available suggests not reading the nomination. Before addressing the remaining points raised, I suggest that reading the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay may be helpful. Specifically, WP:SOURCESEXIST and WP:VALUABLE-type arguments in AfD discussions are rarely persuasive rationales. What is persuasive is substantive mention in reliable sources. I presume that by Jennings you mean The Third Reich is Listening (ISBN 9781472829542)? I have that book, and, strangely, it describes Feichtner in words very similar (often identical) to the same source that was used for this article. Jennings is clearly making the same errors that have been described in the handling of Feichtner's testimony described above and also in the analysis posted on the Feichtner talk page. It cannot be considered a reliable source. As to his rank, Colonel is not generally considered a rank that confers notabilty. E.g.: there are currently about 4,000 Colonels in the United States Army alone and we have no evidence of notabilty for the vast majority of them. As to being "two down from Goering", that also doesn't match any generally-accepted criterion of notability. There were secretaries one down from Goering, do we have any articles about them? Even taking Jennings into consideration, the crux of the issue is that the only evidence we have of Feichtner's importance to WWII is Feichtner's own words. That isn't sufficient. I hope this explanation helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV apply here, claiming that he was "two down from Goering" proves nothing without WP:RS that aren't just rehashes of Feichtner's own opinions. And this: [13] is close to Wikipedia:Canvassing. Mztourist (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:VALINFO is not a criteria for keep. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even after its recent filleting (a sub-headeroctomy!), what remains is far too reliant on primary sources. A WP:BEFORE search suggests that this is due too there being a dearth of available independent, secondary sources.
    Put it another way— three article makes use of all available sourcing on the topic, and still fails to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SN54129 10:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also per nom, of course; the nomination was clearly so extensively researched that it leaves commentators in the happy position of legitimately being able to per nom, safe in the knowledge that there is little more to say that hasn't been said by Eggishorn  :) ——SN54129 10:59, 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 delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator Airlines[edit]

Aviator Airlines (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 an air charter company that once operated one (1) leased airplane and went bankrupt after 18 months. Article is sourced to a couple WP:ROUTINE and incidental mentions on marginally RS sites. A BEFORE finds nothing else. Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having operated a commercial flight it is of note, the fact the referencing could be better is not a reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having operated a commercial flight it is of note" While this may or may not be true, we have unambiguous standards for what constitutes WP:N for purposes of article retention on WP and selling tickets on an airplane is not one of them. Chetsford (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Airlines play a significant part in the transportation industry. It's charter still appears to be active. JAH2k (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's charter still appears to be active." While this may or may not be true, we have unambiguous standards for what constitutes WP:N for purposes of article retention on WP and holding a flight charter from a civil aviation authority is not one of them. Chetsford (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, airlines are not inherently notable and this one shows no indication of passing WP:NORG. Renata (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The airline clearly isn't notable by the WP:NORG standards and things don't get articles simply because they existed, despite what some users might think. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Gnews yields 1 hit, a press release. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Renata and others. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 13:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha Jayaraman[edit]

Preetha Jayaraman (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 seems to be promotional. Article lacks reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENT. She worked in multiple films as a cinematographer. And without a cinematographer a film can not be completed. But, the article needs some work.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that the article needs work, but there are many sources about the subject online, including the following:
→https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/meet-the-woman-cinematograoher-preetha-jayaraman-of-south-indian-cinema/article30075492.ece – article about the subject
→https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil/2020/jan/27/thamizh-talkies-sid-sriram-the-new-downpour-of-talent-2094887.html – a significant mention in this article
→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/cinematographer-preetha-jayaraman-heads-to-bollywood/articleshow/58880654.cms – article about the subject
→https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/watch-mani-ratnams-vaanam-kottattum-teaser-showcases-intense-family-drama/article30513656.ece – subject is mentioned
→https://www.ibtimes.co.in/vijays-wife-ajiths-viswasam-director-rashmika-keerthy-suresh-celebs-wonder-women-awards-807492 – subject won an award for her cinematography
I don't think there's anything wrong with The Hindu article already provided, either. I believe WP:GNG is made out. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've now added the above references to the article. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:46, 3 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 speedy keep. Meets Speedy keep #1 since nominator is advocating merge. Suggest discussing merge on the talk page. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Razor (scooter)[edit]

Razor (scooter) (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 largely reads like a press release. All the sources except for one are direct from the company website. What do you all think about having this merged with Razor USA? Thank you. JAH2k (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JAH2k (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that goes some way toward establishing notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, apart from meeting WP:GNG due to heaps of sources re above, wrong forum as nominator appears to not want this deleted but merged. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjana Sarathy[edit]

Sanjana Sarathy (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 it is a kind of WP:TOOSOON. The article is not meeting with WP:NPOV and has been written for promotional purposes. The article lacks reliable secondary sources. Abishe (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page seems to pass WP:GNG and I added another few links to reputable reviews and articles about the actress. Given that she's appeared in several films and one notable webseries in addition to other projects, I don't quite agree that it's WP:TOOSOON. I don't see where it fails WP:NPOV either, the writing is very much in keeping with Wikipedia standards (I've certainly never seen a press release that read that way). The only part which may have been inappropriate appeared to be the unnecessary detail about her mother, which I have since removed. IphisOfCrete (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She passes WP:NACTOR. Please see this link) and (this link). in.com called her "Thupakki girl" and "Vaalu Star" and Firstpost called that her performance is spotted on the web series Fingertrip (let alone her other works). I think her these three important roles are enough for passing her WP:NACTOR.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. Sphinctor (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Sock !vote removed.[reply]
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Weak Keep: I think it probably is a bit WP:TOOSOON, and I don't think WP:GNG is quite made out. There is a New Indian Express source and a Times of India source (both of which are contained in the article), which provide a little bit more than a passing mention—but I'm not sure about the reliability of Silverscreen, CinemaExpress, Firstpost and in.com. As these sources were brought up by IphisOfCrete and S. M. Nazmus Shakib, if they'd like to argue me over as to why these publications are reliable, I'll happily update my vote accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Having re-assessed the sources, I believe the subject is on the cusp of WP:GNG, and so I'm happy to let the article stand. I have upgraded my vote to a "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 13:31, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Leavitt[edit]

Mick Leavitt (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 as a theater producer. Not mentioned in any of the articles about plays that he worked on. Article originally created to promote Landmark Worldwide. Similar promotional articles about people linked to Landmark Worldwide have been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Scheaf and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Regnier. Edward (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in the Tunnel[edit]

Trouble in the Tunnel (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)

Contested PROD. Original concern was: "This game has very little significance in the lore of the Premier League, and the title seems to be totally made up. The only memorable thing about the game is a minor altercation between the captains of both sides in the tunnel beforehand. Otherwise, this was a totally run-of-the-mill game with few consequences. Even the "legacy" claimed at the end of the article is nonsense: how exactly did this specific game mark the end of these two teams' dominance of English football? This is a totally spurious article." – PeeJay 08:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 08:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No less notable than the matches dubbed 'Battle of Old Trafford' and 'Battle of the Buffet', in fact what happened in the actual match itself was more notable, but all three had memorable incidents and are signifcant in the United-Arsenal rivalry of that era. This is proven by the fact that the match and the incident prior have been mentioned and remembered in the media for the past 15 years. Even earlier this season Keane talked about it on Sky Sports in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Cp-XNYAVU Lorenzo9378 (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - might merit mention on the player articles and the season articles for each club, but does not merit a standalone article. GiantSnowman 10:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having recently watched a piece on Sky about this incident, it was a good reminder about Keane's hissy pre-match outburst in the tunnel and the game itself, which was an epic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemthetoad (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This match and the preceding incident have recieved more enough coverage over the years to satisfy the GNG guidelines, this and it's significance in the Arsenal-United rivalry make it worthy of an article of its own. 79.68.189.135 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The match is only really famous because of the preceding incident. Plus, there are plenty of matches that get a lot of media coverage, but aren't particularly notable encyclopaedically. This is one of those matches. What actually happened? There were no records set, no titles decided, nothing we would usually associate with a football match article on Wikipedia. We've deleted articles that have far stronger cases for notability. – PeeJay 23:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say most matches that get this level media coverage are notable encyclopaedically. Can you give any examples of match articles that have far stronger cases for notability that have been deleted previously? 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)79.68.189.135 (talk)
        • But how much coverage has this game ever really had? Can you provide any sources that cover the game at any level beyond the routine? Four of the 10 references in the article are just match reports from the usual news sources (totally routine), one isn't even about this game, one refers to John O'Shea's goal (which isn't what the game is notable for, if it's even notable at all), and two of them refer to this match as part of a list of matches between United and Arsenal. I fail to see any convincing evidence for the enduring notability of this match beyond a minor spat. This deserves nothing more than a brief mention in an article about the rivalry between the two clubs, if such an article exists. – PeeJay 18:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being well sourced is not an establishment of notability. – PeeJay 10:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at those references, they aren't really something to be notable enough for it's own article compared to the previous two in the mid 2000s between these two matches with them being only match reports brining some up case but not enough for it's own page. HawkAussie (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV with multiple sources over a lengthy period of time. The fact that the BBC chose to revisit this match a decade later shows sustained coverage which indicates lasting notability.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 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 delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Nintendo 64 games[edit]

Chronology of Nintendo 64 games (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)

Unnecessary near-duplicate of List of Nintendo 64 games, but just based upon date of release. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely redundant to the list of games article mentioned in nom, considering the existence of sortable tables. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR Merge. You could take the date columns in this and "insert" those into the List article, which would replace the Year and Region columns (where a game was not released would not have a date). But either way, one or the other, but not both. --Masem (t) 15:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplicate to the List of Nintendo 64 games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to make my own point, but Masem kinda made it for me... so, Merge as per Masem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Scorpions (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to say merge, but I also noticed that it is (almost) entirely unsourced and that the main list is a featured list, so... please do not just insert a ton of unsourced information there as the outcome of this AFD.--AlexandraIDV 10:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I think it would be better to just “build the chronology from scratch” at the list article if anyone has interest in documenting a chronology. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aame Korika[edit]

Aame Korika (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 sufficiently notable. No award, no full-length reviews from independent sources & no independent, significant coverage. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS 💬 12:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 12:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Via google search in English it doesn't seem to me it will pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, there is only one sentence referenced by non-reliable sources.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Sarwara[edit]

Chitra Sarwara (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 clearly fails WP:GNG. Becoming a part of her party's state committee or affiliate organization are not enough for passing WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She definitely passes WP:GNG and I have added a few more sources. While merely being a member of a state committee would not be enough to establish notability, being General Secretary of All India Mahila Congress is a bit different. She has also run for a congressional seat representing Ambala Cantt, and held other more minor roles in various state committees before. Additionally, S. M. Nazmus Shakib you seem to have a history of nominating articles for deletion en masse and using improper criteria. You recently swamped AfD with dozens of nominations for articles related to All India Mahila Congress. The fact that you have also had a significant number of pages CSD'd makes me think that you may not have a good understanding of deletion criteria. As others have already suggested to you, I recommend making deletion nominations more slowly, and taking plenty of time to assess them. In this case, the article passed AfC in November of 2019, it is usually not the case that Wikipedia standards change so much within a few months. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IphisOfCrete Thanks for your comment. Being the president/general secretary of Mahila Congress is not enough for passing our notability criteria per WP:NOTINHERITED. You can say whatever you think. But we should talk about the subjects in AfDs, not about nominators. Politician can change their party. Its very common in India. The other sources you added are not enough because it is typical election time coverage where the main importance is election. And passing in AfC (even in AfD) does not mean that the subject passes our notability criteria. Please take a look on this AfD and this AfD. First one passed AfC and second one passed a AfD. But, both are deleted later.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
S. M. Nazmus Shakib Hi Nazmus, I'm not trying to attack you but this is kind of what I'm talking about. WP:NOTINHERITED states two things, the first is that notability isn't inherited and the second is that it does not have to be. The argument is that all articles must be verifiable and pass WP:GNG. This means that things which might not seem notable can be if they can meet guidelines, and things that sound like they ought to be important can't be included if they aren't verified and don't meet other guidelines.
In this case that means that the subject isn't going to just inherit notability from any positions or offices (save for maybe international, national, and certain subnational offices), we have to figure out if the sources available allow her to pass GNG on their own merit. It also doesn't matter if politicians changing parties is common or not in India, since we have to evaluate individual articles on their own merit. Per WP:NPOL "local politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits". It doesn't matter whether most presidents or general secretaries of major political parties are notable or not, it matters whether or not this particular one is. Personally, a cursory search left me satisfied that she is, but the final determination will be determined by whatever the consensus is.
As an aside, I hope you're not offended but I felt the need to bring up the most recent discussion about your deletion nominations since it appears to be an ongoing difficulty that you are having, and I believe you're earnestly trying to improve the encyclopedia. IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IphisOfCrete Thanks again for your comment. Please see WP:POLOUTCOMES where we don't agree that the party's affiliate organization's people passes WP:NPOL. And I have found coverages about her are routine coverages about party changing, contesting election etc. Her father and husband is considered as prominient. Please see the her party changing and ccontesting election sources where she was mentioned as Nirmal Singh's daughter (this one for example and this one for example). I think these claims are not enough for passing our notability criteria as WP:NOTINHERITED.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
S. M. Nazmus Shakib Nowhere does the policy state that leaders of political parties or organizations are inherently non-notable, it's on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, it doesn't matter if the reason you think she's given attention in news sources is because of nepotism or the influence of her husband, father etc, nepotism happens all the time. It might be unfair but the people who benefit from it probably do end up having a higher chance of becoming notable based solely on coverage. Deletion discussions aren't about individual merit, they are about notability as measured by the available sources. IphisOfCrete (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IphisOfCrete I agree with you that president of an organization does not fail in WP:NPOL or WP:GNG all time. But, in short words, via google search and seeing the article it seems that she does not pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are added here are election time coverage (which is common during Election), others are mere mention and we have seen she was mentioned as someone's daughter. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. And the posts she hold, these postholders are often deleted. The article still fails in our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have so far been very sparse in our coverage of party leaders. Their actual importance can vary from being the actual power, to being a figurehead. In his case, she';s head of the women's section of a major national party . It is not easy to assess the significance of the role. But running for office and losing does no in the least contribute to notability for a politician. DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IphisOfCrete and Goldsztajn. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:50, 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 delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coodle[edit]

Coodle (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)

Blatantly WP:PROMO for something with a lot of sources but still questionable WP:GNG given that, first of all, several of the links point to the SAME story as shared in multiple sources (following "seen on" in some of these shows the same thing at 4 of the links), and quite a few of the rest appear to be paid placements all at the same time in British media. JamesG5 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep before anyone come up with COI tag, well, no personal or indirect link to company or anything. I created article just to contribute. I appreciate JamesG5 for initiating the discussion. I'm waiting how the discussion pan out.GyllenhalMike (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability appears to be borderline at best - it relies on tabloids such as The Sun, which are not suitable sources for Wikipedia articles, and per the nom there may be some sort of paid placement issue going on with several of the "stories" covering this. Furthermore, the article itself looks very promotional in nature so at the very least needs a WP:TNT I would say - it reads like a company brochure advertising the product, rather than a neutrally-written encyclopedia article. I hope this won't discourage GyllenhalMike, who is welcomed to Wikipedia and can hopefully become a regular contributor. But my advice to get started here would be to read Help:Your first article and begin with something more mainstream and encyclopedic than this somewhat niche pillow product. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons that have already been given. Questionable sourcing and written like an advert. Although, I don't think it is necessarily the fault of the creator in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged :) GyllenhalMike (talk) 03:51, 28 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the History of Family Medicine[edit]

Center for the History of Family Medicine (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)

It exists, it is listed in directories, but I couldn't establish that it is notable. It has been tagged for notability for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have plenty of references from respectable medical history sources. Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep appears to pass WP:GNG and we typically keep articles on organizations like this.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per comments above. Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bofors scandal. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Win Chadha[edit]

Win Chadha (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)

He had coverages for being accused of a scandal. There is an another claim which is he is the agent of a company. We know that notability is not inherited. The another claim is he is an agent of a company. These are not enough for WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:39, 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 Withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Sanjaya[edit]

Ibrahim Sanjaya (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)

Too early, the footballer has not yet played a professional match, though his club was promoted to the fully professional Liga 1 and he might be playing the coming weekend (assuming he is still under contract). It is probably good to keep the article listed until we know more. Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:17, 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) 16:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Avasthi[edit]

Shweta Avasthi (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)

A not notable model who never won any type of notable beauty pegaent. Even she appeared only one film. The article clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:09, 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) 16:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Go Airlines (Egypt)[edit]

Air Go Airlines (Egypt) (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 an airline that operated one airplane for 11 months before going under is sourced to a planespotter website. A standard BEFORE finds only one additional source [14]. Article lacks sufficient WP:RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally not notable. The one article could be considered trivial and isn't enough anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insubstantial article lacking sources to fill it out. Dorama285 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Planespotter site appears to be crowd-sourced, so lacks reliability. Only other source I found was clearly a press release. Does not meet basic threshhold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 21:50, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Gridiron Football League[edit]

British Gridiron Football League (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 has been tagged for notability for 12 years - hoping we can now get it resolved one way or the other. It exists, but I couldn't establish that it is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboozle![edit]

Bamboozle! (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 has sat with a notability tag for 12 years - it's time we resolved it one way or the other. There is also relevant info on the Talk page. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a lot, but I think collectively it demonstrates notability for a pre-internet subject. I added these to the article in a Further reading section so that people can use them to improve the article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:27, 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 Hyperseal. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Savin[edit]

Ronald Savin (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)

He was a successful scientist, but I'm not seeing the coverage or significance to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found scarce evidence of notability, but hey, redirects are cheap. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hyperseal. I questioned the notability of Hyperseal at first, but it may barely pass WP:GNG with these two articles: [15], [16]. I can only find mention of Savin in articles about his invention. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:40, 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 Bishopp baronets. Merge at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet (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)

Taking this to AfD again to resolve a dispute. It had a good AfD disucssion in 2013 and was kept. Since then it has had a notability tag applied, which I tried to remove based on the AfD. Mackensen feels notability is still not proven and has restored it. Bringing it here to avoid it being tagged ad infiniteum, hopefully we can get a decision. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Requesting speedy keep - Under WP:CSK 2.d - No deletion rationale is presented. This is not an AfD issue. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and do not speedily discard as requested by User:Sirfurboy. Even though I understand his formalist approach, I prefer to have this deletion discussion to once and for all solve the notability issue, as User:Boleyn proposes.
This person's notability is the fact that he was a clergyman. IMHO that in itself is not enough to justify a standalone article. He is mentioned in the list of archdeacons of Malta, and IMHO that is enough, and he doesn't warrant an article of his own.
On a sidenote, I see he is mentioned in Template:Archdeacons in the Diocese in Europe, even though the article does not mention that he was an archdeacon. If the article is kept, that should be taken care of. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very well. Although the nom. has presented no valid deletion rationale, Debresser (talk · contribs) has done so, and thus I have considered this. I took a look at the previous deletion discussion and am persuaded by the previous nominator's argument. The subject was a clergyman and a baronet. He may have been an archdeacon, but this is unclear. Nevertheless only bishops are considered notable by virtue of their position alone. Likewise a baronet is not notable for being a baronet alone. The sources uncovered are all of a level and depth one would assume for a clergyman and baronet, but as the previous nominator noted, they do not establish notability for a biographical article. This subject does not meet WP:GNG. Arguments in the previous AfD failed to address this question of what specifically makes this clergyman/baronet notable. One of the previous arguments was that the page should be kept for now, and allowed to sit until September 2013 to see if it could be improved, and failing that it could come back to AfD. It is now 7.5 years beyond that deadline and the article is unimproved. Although deletion is not for cleanup, it is my view that it is not improved because there is nothing more to be said about the subject. He is not notable. He does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources, except for the reason that he was a baronet and clergyman. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me restate what I said in 2013. The article's subject was a clergyman born of the gentry who died under 30. He was apparently well-liked by his peers, enough to justify a wordy encomium in The Gentleman's Magazine on his death. That's it. There's no significant coverage. Plenty of people looked in 2013 and came up empty. Barring the introduction of new sources this article will never be more than genealogical stub: he was born, he took holy orders, he died. Whatever the attitude was in the mid-Victorian era, modern scholarship doesn't appear to have taken any notice of this man. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bishopp baronets. This fellow isn't notable, but the family/baronetcy and a number of members are. The 10th baronet is mentioned in several Wikipedia articles and it will be frustrating for readers to not have this information available, although it's not notable enough for a standalone article.Jahaza (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jahaza makes a good point, redirect to Bishopp baronets would be WP:USEFUL to readers. Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there are many names in that article without redirects. Just because we had an article, doesn't mean we should keep a redirect, even though redirects are cheap. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO: just Redirect to Bishopp baronets -- I see nothing notable in the article's content. Cockayne's Baronetcy says he was archdeacon, which might make him notable, but I would prefer to see a citation from Crockford's clerical directory, if it goes back to the 1840s. He seems to have been ordained in 1844, had a parish in Plymouth in 1845, quickly returned to Malta (for his health) and died in 1849: hardly a notable career. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is fine - there's no real independent notability. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The9Man | (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa Gurunath[edit]

Rupa Gurunath (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 Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG The9Man | (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC) This article went though changes and reliable references are added to establish the notability. The9Man | (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is known for being the first woman to head a state unit of the Indian cricket board (TNCA). There are significant independent, reliable sources covering this and so I think it satisfies WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanze1 (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only category where she would fall is WP:ANYBIO where we need some signifficant achievements for a separate article. Being the elected person of a local body where her father has a commanding power doesn't show the notability in my POV. Almost all the sources mentioned address her as the daughter of Srinivasan where she lacks the individuality. Even the article itself indroduce her as 'Rupa Gurunath is the daughter of Indian industrialist, former president of the BCCI, and former chairman of the ICC, N. Srinivasan' (Fully emphazised on his father's achievements).
    She has no other notable achievements or works to show. Also doesn't have any significat coverage that the subject merits its own article as of now. The maximum we could do currently is Redirect it to Tamil Nadu Cricket Association - The9Man | (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to vote here because the subject is out of my area. Just want to note that I fixed up the lead by moving her personal relationships down. Those writing about women (and those reading and editing articles about women) might keep things like WP:NOTBYRELATION and WP:FIRSTWOMAN in mind. Secondly, though I am loathe to assume naming conventions in countries I have no expertise in, I would assume based on context that she has a maiden name that should be added to the article and included in searches for reliable sources. Regards, DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:48, 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! 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan A cricket team in Bangladesh in 2019[edit]

Afghanistan A cricket team in Bangladesh in 2019 (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)

It fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG as they are second-tiered matches which also fails WP:CRICKET. HawkAussie (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the A team series exists. What will you say about them? These matches have official statuses anyway. Is this because these two teams are lower tier teams that seems 'irrelevent' to some editors? Human (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the matches in this tour are noted as unofficial. Ajf773 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: It's not unofficial. A player made his List A debut in this match.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bathiladi[edit]

Bathiladi (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 film that fails to establish why it is notable. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:21, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaport[edit]

Aquaport (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 yet notable DGG ( talk ) 11:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.WikiAviator (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Might be when it re-opens, but that's debatable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's gonna open really soon, and when it does, it will be notable. Analog Horror, (Speak) 02:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not like the article can't be recreated if and when it is. We shouldn't keep articles for currently none notable subjects around just because we anticipate it will become notable in the future. Plus, for all you know the project could be delayed. Also, undoubtedly there will be some time between it's opening and the publication about it in reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entuity Network Analytics[edit]

Entuity Network Analytics (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)

A non notable data company. Most of the sources cover its acquisition by Park Palace, which was routine news covered by news papers. Nothing in the sources signifies enough coverage required by WP:GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no in-depth coverage of Entuity, the sources all focus on its acquisition by Park Place Technologies, a potential merge target, were it not that there's no such article. It's unlikely that one can be created, as the sources for that company are also mostly press releases, blogs and trade journals. Vexations (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnotable and lacking sources. Dorama285 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I have added a few sources after renaming and moving the page. Perhaps others can research and add more content and citations instead of trying to delete the page. This is a 20-year-old company, not a Johhny-come-lately. Sachi Mohanty 13:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    Between revisons 941240897 and 941254104, prior to this AfD, User:Sachi bbsr has added these sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] I'm especially unimpressed by prnewswire and entuity.com as sources. Vexations (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like EnterpriseNetworkingPlanet.com and ITEuropa.com also publish press releases for pay. Dorama285 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The most substantial reference is the 2015 bylined product review from Enterprise Networking Planet. Other than that, there are multiple announcement notices concerning Park Place Technologies' acquisitions of this and other companies, which, if they weren't trivial coverage by the definition at WP:CORPDEPTH, would be more appropriate to a page on that company. I am not seeing sufficient to demonstrate specific notability for Entuity, whether as a firm or its product. AllyD (talk) 15:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Dushku[edit]

Judy Dushku (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 for lack of truly reliable sources substantially about the subject , written in the style of a press release, and in large part based on peripheral involvement in a single event. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: as far as I can tell on a first pass scrutiny. Does not professor pass WP:NACADEMIC? The Sisters Help of Exponent II seems significant enough.[28], [29], ... . I'm not sure this fully addresses the nom.s concern then. This is a new article and AfD nom. may relate to page curation.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I’m puzzled. The nom sounds like it relates to some other article. I see a lead, which references standing in Mormon feminism, academia, co-founding a 45-year-old journal, and an NGO, and more. I then see a set of balanced sections. I see plenty of referencing, no sign of press release - ?! - and what single event? Mitt Romney? It’s just an aspect, and the subject was much interviewed, but the article does not over-highlight it. I suggest to highlight any specific concerns in the article but with a couple of good profiles (refs #3 and #8, and also considering the university page, Exponent II, and #11) , I see no major concerns. Twilson r (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A couple of broad articles for GNG, and well-cited on the detail. Was well-aired during Romney’s push for nomination but the lady has a very real career in journalism and academia too. 91.193.179.137 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete The content of the article seems extremely trivial and lacking in-depth detail. Plus, it's clearly written to shed her in an overly positive light. The lead about her standing in Mormon feminism (however one gets that) is questionable, as there's nothing really later on in the article about it. Except that she was involved with a magazine that printed feminist articles, among other subjects. The thing about Exponent II is questionable to establish notability also because its just a none profit journal that isn't associated with the church and might not even be notable on it's own. She's notable by association of being one of 4 people that brought it back though. Let alone just for doing a column in it. There's nothing that applies just on her academic accomplishments either as she doesn't seem to have a had a significant impact on anything, hasn't held a highest level post, or accomplished anything else WP:NACADEMIC mentions. Just being a professor doesn't qualify. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Twilson r's analysis is basically correct. (A couple more news items: [30][31]) The article may need edits for tone here and there, but I'm not seeing a problem that we need deletion to fix. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as the article creator, I'm keen to learn, but first, I took the article on as a challenge, with no prior knowledge or position, so I really can't accept suggestions of "PR"-type bias, and second, I did gather citations over more than a week (it's in my subpages), including a couple of items of some depth and breadth, so I believed WP:N to be met, and am confident that the sections meet WP:V. Re. WP:NPOV, there is a suggestion above that the article may be overly-favourable, which I don't quite follow, but if more discussion of the subject's positions would help, I can use some of the sources to expand coverage. I've reviewed thousands of articles myself, and I would not have let this one out without believing it was at least Start class, would not aim as high as B class, or in-depth, from the get-go, but was hoping others, with more specialist knowledge, would help build it up further. SeoR (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the article to remove bad sources and added some new ones from prominent newspapers. She still easily passes WP:GNG and there is enough to make a case for her as a public leader. As an aside SeoR you can not vote as the article's creator, but you can comment here. IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for both things @IphisOfCrete:. I have not had an AfD on an article creation before, and I actually thought it would be logical not to make a !vote, but did not find that point on a quick check on procedure - apologies to all, corrected to Comment. On the sources, I was wary of FB, but included it as the original source of a story (but not a central one, one concerning a family member), great to have that clarified. SeoR (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of clunky language is still here, but it has improved thanks to DGG's nomination. Dorama285 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Twopower332.1938 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My opinion remains: hopelessly promotional and over personal. Every section contains extremely peripheral material, usually indirect quotes of what she says about herselgf:
"Dushku has commented that her apolitical parents were appalled by the racism encountered in some places in the South of the US, and ensured that the family grew up as bridge-builders, showing goodwill towards people of all cultures. She pursued the same philosophy when she took students into the family home, not making a separate apartment but having them share the same space, and dinner table, so that they became like family members. Later she and the children would visit some at home in their own countries"
"She took on a range of administrative work, in addition to teaching duties, managing aspects of student affairs and supporting foreign students"
"While in Dakar, Dushku and her husband met a number of surviving child soldiers, child brides and refugees from countries which had encountered severe disruption, and decided that they wanted to pursue non-governmental organization work to support such survivors." The article then goes int odetail about the organization. The wording, "decided [for whatever reason] that they wanted to [do something ] " is very common here, and always promotional; encyclopedic writing should be "They [did something]" DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you now refusing articles over style? I teach English for a living and I'd call the above an unusual definition of the word 'promotional' but I see your point about 'personal'. I think this is written in the style we call 'modern journalistic', as opposed to 'classical journalistic', or the even drier 'academic'. 'Modern journalistic' is designed to engage readers, making them feel closer to topics. As an occasional 'fixer' of prose on your site, I'd say the style is quite common on Wikipedia, perhaps due to your reliance on media sources for many of your articles. I'd be delighted if my students could write fluently in any of these styles but if that's the issue then the solution is just to strip out over-the-top or fluffy material. I can take a shot. 83.220.238.66 (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC) I did a quick 'stripping out' of content which could be seen as personal, as this is not necessarily neutral or verifiable beyond the words of the article's subject. I cut out most of the first and third sections highlighted by Mr/Ms DGG, while the middle sentence seemed more objective, describing duties taken by the academic being profiled. This is very normal for mid- and high-level academics. You have a policy called Neutral Point of View which this leaner version of the article now fits better. I hope the article author appreciates my intent, and the topic of the article is interesting and I hope you keep it in some form. 83.220.238.66 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both editors above - this clarifies some of the concerns for me. I see the point as to NPOV when quoting the subject, and will keep that in mind for the future, focusing on "who did what" and not what might have motivated them. I would argue, however, that some background may be appropriate when explaining why a person took up peace or feminist campaigns, but appreciate that some external point of view would be optimal in such case. To the second editor, I appreciate your action with the virtual scalpel. On punctuation, I see points of difference, partly down to varieties of English, and will add a tag to clarify that American English should be used, indeed; I did try to do this but my home variety is Hiberno-English. I continue to seek further neutral sources. SeoR (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly we do and should refuse articles when the style is so promotional that it cannot be fixed. The basic concept behind everything we do is that we're an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are objective, and that means an insistence on Verifiability and Nonpromotional.. Material that isn't objective has no place in them. In the present day, with advertising so prevalent almost to the exclusion of information in almost all media, Wikipedia has all hte more reason to emphasize this. If an article is fixed during hte discussion, it shouldn't be deleted; if it's only partway fixed, it can go to draft But even after an article has been deleted, anyone is welcome to try over. (My own experience tho, is that for highly promotional material, there is usually not sufficient substance behind it to meet notability . But that is often clear only b once promotionalism has been removed) DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After scanning through the article and reading the discussion, I gravitate towards keeping it, signaling its issues with the appropriate templates Samer.hc (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is a concern that this entry was promoted by Trump's people as part of their revenge on Mitt Romney then someone is perhaps, as we say, "reaching." It mentions the spat between these two faces of Mormonism only in passing, whereas columns were written quoting Prof. Dushku on Romney. And I suspect Trump's people could find better ways than writing up a veteran academic, maybe check more directly relevant articles. Not my area of expertise but this article seems kinda useful, niche, but then so are a lot of the 6 million articles. 192.176.1.105 (talk) 08:27, 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 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. North America1000 12:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danka.pk[edit]

Danka.pk (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 website is not working, not much coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 10:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 10:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:59, 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! 17:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Narayan Mandir of North Houston[edit]

Lakshmi Narayan Mandir of North Houston (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)

no evidence for notability , any more than any other temple or church DGG ( talk ) 10:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage does not suggest notability. --Kinu t/c 03:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I find nothing but directories and their ilk. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-it has three third party references supporting its notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the references provided, this and this are routine coverage, and this is a passing mention. WP:GNG is hardly satisfied. --Kinu t/c 15:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Borgman[edit]

Lori Borgman (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)

Survived AfD in 2009 but notability is still not clear to me. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I could tell, she satisfies WP:AUTHOR as having significant reviews for at least one of her books (Kirkus & PW). Her books have been translated into several languages, and have been discussed in at least one other book by a different author (ISBNs 9780786480647). If you Google her you'll most likely find articles she's written for The Union Leader, Lima Ohio, or Chicago Tribune, but that's no reason to discount the AUTHOR argument. Children's book authors can be notable too, you know! PK650 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:58, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KAECHS[edit]

KAECHS (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)

Private housing society, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and there's nothing worth merging. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:53, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia City[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rabia City (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)

Private housing society, fails WP:NGEO. Störm (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and there's nothing worth merging. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a directory. Which this article clearly was meant to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yunusabad, Karachi[edit]

Yunusabad, Karachi (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and there's nothing worth merging.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq bin Ziyad housing Karachi[edit]

Tariq bin Ziyad housing Karachi (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and there's nothing worth merging.
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:49, 3 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turk Colony[edit]

Turk Colony (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is supposedly a subdivision of a neighborhood in Karachi, one of the largest cities in the world, so it could potentially be notable. But the cited sources don't link directly to anything that mentions this area, so the article seems to be completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the neighbourhood article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems to only have one source and no notability. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 15:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do see numerous mentions of this neighbourhood online, so it certainly exists, but no instances of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:48, 3 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Syed Colony[edit]

Sir Syed Colony (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is supposedly a subdivision of a neighborhood in Karachi, one of the largest cities in the world, so it could potentially be notable. But the cited sources don't link directly to anything that mentions this area, so the article seems to be completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the neighbourhood article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nafeesabad[edit]

Nafeesabad (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is supposedly a subdivision of a neighborhood in Karachi, one of the largest cities in the world, so it could potentially be notable. But the cited source doesn't link directly to anything that mentions this area, so the article seems to be completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the neighbourhood article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffarabad (Karachi)[edit]

Muzaffarabad (Karachi) (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is supposedly a subdivision of a neighborhood in Karachi, one of the largest cities in the world, so it could potentially be notable. But the cited source doesn't link directly to anything that mentions this area, so the article seems to be completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the neighbourhood article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustufa Colony[edit]

Mustufa Colony (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is supposedly a subdivision of a neighborhood in Karachi, one of the largest cities in the world, so it could potentially be notable. But the cited sources don't link directly to anything that mentions this area, so the article seems to be completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New Karachi Town. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahabuddin Ghori Colony[edit]

Shahabuddin Ghori Colony (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)

No source that it is government recognized. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is supposedly a subdivision of a neighborhood in Karachi, one of the largest cities in the world, so it could potentially be notable. But the only source cited doesn't mention this area anywhere that I can find, so the article seems to be completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the neighbourhood article as the content is useful, but shouldn't be a standalone article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and there's nothing worth merging. Wikipedia isn't a directory.
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:46, 3 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 GoldSrc mods#Team deathmatch. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Specialists (mod)[edit]

The Specialists (mod) (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. The mod has only received passing mentions in sources listing it as one of numerous early Half-Life mods. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I could see a current Redirect to List of GoldSrc mods where the mod is listed (and I just added a source for it). Right now, there's naught but passing mention in the discussion of the team's followup "Double Action: Boogaloo", but that itself is not notable (it gained attention during a kickstarter in 2013, but while released, no coverage since). The mod list is a fine home for it. --Masem (t) 16:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more comments on deletion vs. redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warfare[edit]

Global Warfare (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. Non-notable Half Life mod that lacks mentions in reliable sources. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazlow Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lazlow Jones (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:V, and WP:BLPSTYLE BonkHindrance (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technofile and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazlow Show. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article looks like an attempted promotion. His endeavors have not attracted significant and reliable media coverage beyond fansites and pop culture listcicle sites, even though he has had shows on XM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree this article needs to be re-worded to remove promotional material, Lazlow's work with Rockstar has given him a lot of independent and significant coverage. There is a lot of coverage available, and WP:NEXIST states that notability is based on the existence of sources, not on the sourcing in an article. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Handoto. Promotional material should be removed. Other that that, the article is good enough to pass WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG. SUPER ASTIG 02:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Supporters of keep should specifically list the sources which give significant coverage of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:52, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MauBank WithMe[edit]

MauBank WithMe (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 product doesn't meet WP:GNG notability standards. There seems to be no reliable, independent, in-depth sources on it. The 2 most promising sources I've found have reliability problems: The first sounds like a press release, and the publisher even makes a disclaimer that they're unreliable for accuracy. And the second is a list of awards given out by Infosys Finacle to their clients (one of which is MauBank). There also doesn't seem to be a point in merging per WP:PRODUCT because not only does the information seem unreliable/unverifiable, but the product already has a section on the company's wikiarticle. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is literally the description of every mobile banking app ever and there's nothing unique here. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Not notable.--Kingroyos (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After-close comment I have, and this is very much not meeting N as a run-of-the-mill banking app. My bank's app has all this stuff, including OCR for mobile deposit, and the sourcing was almost all PR. Nate • (chatter) 18:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have taken note about the lack of reliable sources and have address the issue by adding more reliable references. The sources provided include some of the most popular media outlets in Mauritius which includes Inside News, Le Mauricien, Le Défi Media Group, Investors Mag and ION News. With regards to the article from Le Mauricien, I should highlight that Le Mauricien is a major newspaper in Mauritius and that the disclaimer is not specifically about the article itself, but general disclaimer which are usually available on nearly all websites online. The article contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it (See Wikipedia:Stub#Creating_and_improving_a_stub_article). Moreover, as per WP:PRODUCT, when providing details of a particular products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. It would not make sense to provide all these specific details about the app on the bank's article. With regards to the last point, please note that the app is unique on its own as it is the first mobile app in Mauritius which allows users to open a bank account using their smartphone, conduct video call with the bank officers and uses OCR technology to capture data directly from documents. In addition, the article cannot be deleted on the basis that it is not unique. The is not a criteria for speedy deletion. -- Kingroyos (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingroyos: I appreciate the added extra sources. However, from a quick lookover, all of the sources still seem to have problems: (note, all quotes are taken from google translate, since I don't speak French)
  • [32] This is a passing mention based off of app rankings. It does not verify anything, other than that the app exists.
  • [33] The only reference it makes to the product is one sentence, and is a promotional quote from the CEO of MauBank: "Mungar added MauBank made a clear statement of intent with its mobile banking app WithMe, designed to adapt to customers’ changing needs and ensure a seamless banking experience."
  • [34] This website seems broken. I can't get it to load at all.
  • [35] This is only an interview with an employee. It is not independence or reliable as a source (See WP:SOURCE or WP:GNG), since it is someone talking about their own product (which is not just self-serving/promotional, but also the employee is making a claim about something other than himself, which doesn't meet the standards for WP:SELFSOURCE).
  • [36] This seems to be some sort of user-generated profile about the bank. It most likely has no editorial oversight, and it could have just been written by the bank itself.
  • [37] does not mention the product. It talks about strategies of the company and banking software, but since there is nothing that directly states it's talking about the product, I would say claiming it is about the product is WP:ORIGINAL research because it is reaching a conclusion not stated in the source (see WP:SYNTHESIS), which is not allowed.
  • [38] Seems completely promotional. It starts: "MauBank strengthens its online presence with the launch of MauBank WithMe. This mobile application brings its customers a new banking experience. This is the first of a series of technological solutions developed by the bank. The mobile app was launched this week and can already be downloaded from the App Store and Google Play."
  • [39] Another promotional piece. Starts with: "In an effort to create a better experience for its customers, MauBank launched the "MauBankWithMe" mobile application this week. Downloadable from PlayStore and Apple Store, the app will allow MauBank customers, wherever they are, to do banking anytime. Transactions vary: balance check, money transfer, card blocking in the event of loss, among others."
  • [40] Completely irrelevant announcment from the company. All it says is: "MauBank informs its customers that, due to enhancement works on its platforms, two of its services will be temporarily out of service as follows: The MauBank WithMe app, from 9 p.m. Thursday March 7 to 5 a.m. Friday March 8, 2019. The ATMs of Petite Rivière, Pope Hennesy, Wellkin Hospital, La Croisette, Dumas Street, Argonaute, François Mitterrand Flacq and Curepipe from 1 hour to 3 hours, Friday March 8, 2019. MauBank apologizes in advance for any inconvenience and relies on your understanding."
And here is the source I mentioned earlier, from Le Maurien. It's still probably the best source out the bunch, and I understand what you mean that news websites sometimes have disclaimers to their accuracy.
  • [41] It still seems like a promotional, run-of-the-mill news announcement. It starts: "MauBank is part of the trend and has launched its mobile application, dubbed "With Me", for a few days now. This allows you to check your daily banking transactions, replenish your account and even block and unblock your smart card if the need arises. But the "little extra" that makes this application "more innovative" is the possibility of opening a bank account with all the security guarantees!"
I'd also like to point out that all the promotional sources are problematic because a.) they seem like routine news reporting of announcements about the app, and wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and b.) I would question the independence or significance of the articles, because they seem like the result of promotional activity, so it is not enough that these sources just exist (see WP:NRV).
The product's claim to uniqueness (said above) also doesn't determine notability, since significant coverage, not facts/claims, are what determine notability. I also would say that claim is a WP:REDFLAG - It's an exceptional/important claim that doesn't seem to be sourced with multiple, high-quality sources. The claim the article makes also isn't verified by the sources, because the claim seems to only be made by employees.
In summary: the coverage is not independent or reliable, so it still doesn't pass WP:GNG. Even if the product was notable, per WP:PRODUCT which you mentioned above, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Every feature of the app is not necessary, and I would say wanting to include them is not enough of a basis to have it's own article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend, I took note of the queries above, please find the clarifications here-under:
  • [42] Please note that I have provided this reference after there has been a request more sources to sustain the notability of the app, this reference has been provided to show that the app is among the most popular free financial apps in Mauritius. In addition, the reference is from Inside News which among the most popular news outlet in Mauritius.
  • [43] This reference has been provided as a reference to sustain the fact that it is the first app in Mauritius to inboard customers through a mobile app. I don't understand why we should pick and choose a particular sentence in the article to try to discredit it. In addition, the reference is from The Japan Times which is considered as an independent reliable reference.
  • [44][45] Maybe you were unable to open the link because the link was pointing to the mobile version of the website. My apologies for this, needful has been done to change the link. The first article is about the launching of the app and the second one is about the features of the app. Please note that Le Défi Media Group is considered to be an independent reliable reference. Le Défi Media Group is among the most popular news outlet in Mauritius. According to Alexa Ranking, after google, it is the second most visited website in Mauritius. (See [46])
  • [47] This reference has been provided as a reference to the fact that the apps has unique features which is first of its kind on the island. Investors Mag is among the most popular Business Magazine in Mauritius. As long as the source is not being use to sustain false information and is from an independent, reliable published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don’t see why we should try to discredit the reference just because it is an interview from an employee.
  • [48] As you said it yourself, it seems to be a user-generated profile but has not provided any proof to sustain your arguments. Please be more specific on which Wikipedia criteria this reference is invalid and why.
  • [49], please refer to page 10 where it is mention that the mobile app uses OCR techniques to capture data from National Identity cards. This reference has been provided to sustain this fact. Again, as long as the source is not being use to sustain false information, I don’t see why we should try to discredit it. Your claim of WP:ORIGINAL research and WP:SYNTHESIS is completely irrelevant here.
  • [50], this reference has been provided to sustain the fact that the app allows video call with the officers of the bank during office hours. Please be more specific on which Wikipedia criteria is this reference not valid just because it talks about the product. What kind of article are you expecting for an app?
  • [51] This reference has been use to sustain the fact that the app is available on the iOS App Store and Google Play Store. Again, please be more specific on which Wikipedia criteria is this reference not valid just because it talks about the product. What kind of article are you expecting for an app? In addition, please note that ION News is among the most popular news outlets in Mauritius, you can verify same on Alexa Ranking.
  • [52] This announcement was provided to show that the app is notable enough, the public was informed accordingly when it was not available. You can remove it if you want.
  • [53] This reference has been provided to sustain the fact that, it is the first app in Mauritius which allows users to open a bank account with their smartphone. Again, please be more specific on which Wikipedia criteria this reference is not valid and what kind of article were you expecting for a mobile app? In addition, please note that Le Mauricien is among the most popular newspaper on Mauritius island.
With regards to WP:NRV, the number of coverage received by the app from the most popular news outlets in Mauritius as shown above means that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Please don’t be confused, WP:NOTNEWS talks about the content on Wikipedia and not about the references, instead WP:NEWSORG encourage the use of reliable newspaper as reference to sustain facts. As per WP:NEWSORG, News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). Please be more specific if you think that the references contain any errors. In addition, as per WP:GNG, if a topic has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. For an app which is only available in Mauritius, we should not expect news coverage of the app from big names like The Guardian, BBC World, Le Monde, New York Times, etc, but from major news papers outlets from Mauritius only. The app may not be notable internationally but it is notable and unique in Mauritius and therefore meet the conditions for WP:GNG. Please have a in dept reading of the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:GNG, WP:NEWSORG and be more specific why and specifically on which criteria the article should be deleted. The reasons you have given are too vague and are not compelling enough to claim deletion based on the criterions of Wikipedia. Cheers.--Kingroyos (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Not notable.--Kingroyos (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. All of the sources are too closely connected to the subject (ie press releases or paid for PR). My WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing to support notability.4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 3 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. Sandstein 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anjilee Istwal[edit]

Anjilee Istwal (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 meeting minimum requirements of WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based only on English language sources where the subject is not notable. If there are decent sources in Hindi I’ll happily change my vote. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:50, 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. Sandstein 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akhand Jharkhand People's Front[edit]

Akhand Jharkhand People's Front (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 find sources to verify it is notable, but I'm aware I may be missing something in a different language. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article expanded somewhat now, and at least it gives an idea of the territoriality of the party and its key demand for merger with Jharkhand state. It appears the party peaked around 1998 and that after Singh withdrew (presumably after the Feb 2005 election), Soren has carried on running it. I'm not able to expand it further at this stage, and in terms of notability the referencing isn't great. Just one angle that I think can be taken into account is the systematic bias, in the sense of a political organization active among tribal communities in a remote area and whose peak period occured at a moment when internet coverage wasn't great. It is well possible that we are missing more material from offline regional print media of the time period. --Soman (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
A party can demand moon and may claim entire country as their territory but if they are not considered important enough by media to cover or by voters during election, there is no reason to keep it. see WP:ORGDEPTH for more. The regional newspapers, The Telegraph, Times of India, Hindustan and Dainik Jagaran are available online, so claiming BIAS isn't helpful here. Their candidates on an average got a 1000 votes each which again points to the sorry state of the notability of this party. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable political party that failed to win any election despite participating. fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not an WP:indiscriminate repository of non notable political parties. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:49, 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) 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All About the Rock[edit]

All About the Rock (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)

It exists, but I could find nothing to indicate notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only sources being used, aside from their Alexa information, is the site itself. Searching brought up no coverage on the site in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:49, 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) 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Active Democracy[edit]

Active Democracy (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)

It is a substantially unknown micro party, it has participated in a few local elections with irrelevant results and the ideas of this party don't seem known. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thirteen years and still no sources Dorama285 00:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG, as the article is completely unreferenced and the party has apparently not done anything of note. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:40, 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. North America1000 12:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italy Again[edit]

Italy Again (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)

Is a movement founded by Maurizio Scelli in 2005, whose only news is its foundation, therefore totally irrelevant. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:MILL. We are not a listing or web-host for every single tiny party that has never elected a single member to anything. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the article doesn't cite any reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Fashion News[edit]

London Fashion News (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:WEBCRIT and general notability. I'm seeing no independent coverage of the website. The San Francisco Chronicle reference does not mention the subject and the other references are deprecated. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article describes what it is, but I can't find a lot about why it's notable. Dorama285 00:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:46, 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 keep. Consensus is keep, but not by a wide margin. Notability is not relational. Consensus is that NACTOR is met and that GNG is met through some of the available, unchallenged sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Raghavendra[edit]

Ravi Raghavendra (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)

Unknown father of a popular singer. Notability is not established. This actor needs sources as to why he is notable. This article is a blatant promotion of Anirudh's father. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: True, the subject owes some of his notability to his son, but I feel he probably deserves an article based on his own career, too. He's played many supporting roles in notable films, so I feel he would just get through under WP:NACTOR. He is also mentioned/discussed in various articles from the following news outlets: Sify, The Hans India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, and more. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the reliability of these sources, however, so I would welcome feedback from others and will update my vote if necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hindu, Hans India and New Indian Express are reliable sources but i'm not sure about sify, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely fails WP:GNG and breaches WP:NPOV. I agree per nom that the person is not notable compared to his son Anirudh. Abishe (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abishe, it shouldn't matter whether the subject is notable when compared to his son, but rather whether he is notable as per the notability standards. If you believe he fails WP:GNG, that is fair enough, but being less notable than his son isn't relevant to the policy, as I understand it. Also, a breach of WP:NPOV can be addressed without deleting the entire article. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he has some prominent roles in notable films such as being credited 2nd and third in the credits and therefore has claims to pass WP:NACTOR criteria 1, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 3 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. Sandstein 18:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday World (1895–97)[edit]

Sunday World (1895–97) (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 paper was extremely short lived and cites no sources. Upon research for it I found little to no actual information about it, It also featured few notable results. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:44, 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. Sandstein 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nandkumar Ghodele[edit]

Nandkumar Ghodele (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's person is mayor of Aurangabad, 6th largest city of Maharashtra. The article did not pass WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and the content has given much importance to controversy which has been written in a clumsy manner. Abishe (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a failure of WP:GNG. Mayors are not presumed notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:24, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Costa Medeiros[edit]

Gustavo Costa Medeiros (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)

Per this discussion at WP:AN, this article had a CSD tag since 2019, but never appeared in CAT:CSD. Sending to AfD as procedural nomination - I suspect this person is non-notable, but simply checking. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "...currently in his second residence in psychiatry..." Folks this early in their career are almost never notable. The publication record looks nowhere near WP:NPROF, and I see no other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "... too early, his highest cited paper has 14 citations. --hroest 18:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:PROF, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Far too early in his career, he fails the professor test. Much of the claim to notability rests on other Nobel Prizes by (late) co-workers. Many alumni of my school have won the Nobel Prize, too. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 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.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 17:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_February_24&oldid=943927980"