Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 February	29 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Meteor Crater. Consensus is that it is a real place, but that it is not currently clear if it was ever inhabited. Should more sources surface in the future, the article can be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine, Arizona

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

Well, this one is a mess, and searching is rendered almost impossible by a game named "Arizona Sunshine" which shows up in results no matter what I do to exclude it. Anyway, the GNIS entry is almost certainly a mistake of some sort: in spite of it supposedly being scraped from a topo map, I see no sign of it at the coordinates given, which locate to a hillside with nothing near it at all. Interestingly, GMaps goes to a different point, which happens to be at the end of a passing siding on the ATSF main line, just north of the I-40 exit to go to Meteor Crater. There is of course no civilization around other than an RV camp on the opposite side of the interstate, which is named after the crater, not the siding. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969: the article starter should be notified. Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The point GMaps gives is consistent with the 1968 topo map, not sure about the discrepancy the coordinates on GNIS. Absent from the 1982 map. I found results that there was oil drilling taking place there [1] and it was an RR station for a potential power plant [2] but nothing that it was a community. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you for the research and newspaper access Reywas92. From the evidence presented the subject fails WP:GNG and the SNG WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meteor Crater. Sunshine station was the location of Meteor post office, detailed here. The establishment of the post office in 1906 at Sunshine serving the crater involved a petition to Theodore Roosevelt, so is of some note. Prior to 1902 the station was called "Sunset" as stated in Arizona Place Names but I haven't had much luck finding anything under that name. Redirecting Sunshine, Arizona to Meteor Crater also makes sense because some local geological features have ended up with the name, such as Sunshine Nose.----Pontificalibus 08:31, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 21:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cobb (singer)

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

Per WP:NBAND. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. No notable awards or recognition. Comatmebro (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST completely. No secondary, reliable coverage of the subject at all from what I can see. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage such as no entry at all at All Music, also his youtube subscibers amount to 62,000 which is relatively low and the video views are low as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reference is from his YouTube channel, and there isn't that much notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot source him to his performances themselves which is what is being done here. We need secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and others. "...62,000 which is relatively low" and "there isn't that much notability" are very conservative comments. According to the Social Blade (that I recently ran across): Social Blade Rank= 262,590th, Subscriber Rank= 250,213th, and Video Views Rank= 390,197th. This seems like an advertising push to get "youtube coverage on Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site". Otr500 (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This isn't an article, it's a hot mess. Even assuming we could fix this essay/resume, there aren't enough significant coverage in secondary sources to allow for musical notability. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am merely piling it on here, but in addition to what everyone else has said, it is suspicious when a musician who claims to have dozens of releases gets almost no media coverage outside of his own social media self-promotions. All I found was this: [3], from a site that appears to host freelance music/movie reviewers. Mr. Cobb is a hobbyist who makes and releases his own music, and there is apparently a lot of it, but quantity does not translate into notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 5 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 City of Bell scandal. Sandstein 11:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Hernandez (politician)

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

Subject is notable solely for his role in the City of Bell scandal‎. This one paragraph should be rolled into that article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing for merger there's no need to go through AfD. You can do that unilaterally. Right now this AfD could be closed as speedy keep #1 because no one has argued for deletion or hard redirect. b uidhe 23:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; Bell CA is a small town which cannot hand all of its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist, and three of the six footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, while the three that are real media are all covering him in the context of a single incident that just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a topic of enduring encyclopedic interest in his own right. That said, Buidhe is correct that you don't need AFD's permission to redirect it to the event article — you can just do it unilaterally, as long as your edit summary explains your actions. AFD can certainly be asked to weigh in later on if somebody opposes you on it afterward, but doesn't have to weigh in before you're allowed to act the first time. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City of Bell scandal and merge as appropriate. Also support bold redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City of Bell scandal and merge relevant content. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It turns out I cannot delete the article since it has so many revisions. Could a steward handle it, please? Tone 22:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Decepticons

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Autobots that was just deleted. Anyone worried about the redirects to the article can either move them now or request they be retained should this end in delete.

This list no longer has any utility. The series previously had somewhere between 600-1000 character articles. It now has 20. There are also around 20 character lists, so this is not a necessary navigational list. Decepticon can hold a small list of blue links if that's actually necessary. This is just a barebones list of names, and even that is useless because most of these characters have two to three different versions due to most of these series being completely different continuities only sharing some core character concepts. Due to that, this cannot function as a proper navigational hub without being even more of a mess than its current incarnation. TTN (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure fancruft. Most of the bluelinks are either circular or point to something irrelevant, eg Squawkbox. b uidhe 23:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's clumsily and poorly worded and other articles cover all of it.Halbared (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much my same argument here as on the recently closed AFD on the corresponding Autobots list. Every major iteration of the franchise already has coverage of their major characters, whether on the many other Lists of Transformers characters or in their own articles. A list that just jams in every Decepticon, regardless of notability, from multiple series, timelines, and continuities into one place is not a useful way to organize information that is either already found in better form elsewhere or not notable enough to cover. Decepticons are notable, but this list is just WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Transformers story arcs are too separate to create a coherent list that passes WP:LISTN, and most of the content on this page is irrelevant to anything. Hog Farm (talk) 05:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - I believe this list can be made functional, but I don't have the time to do so now. I'd like it to be moved to a subpage in my userspace so I don't have to start from scratch later. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As others have already pointed out, the characters on this list are already present on other lists. There is nothing lost by getting rid of this list other than duplicated text. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete. I would have wanted List of Autobots to stay, but no that it's been deleted, it feels silly to keep List of Decepticons around. Being a Decepticon is in no way any more notable than being an Autobot, or vice versa. JIP | Talk 21:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: This article has been edited 9K times, so that's another steward to ask at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. ミラ P 22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that fails WP's current notability criteria for lists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everything above - INDISCRIMINATE is a good enough reason. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:54, 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 Since relisting to aloow for examination of the sources, a consensus has emerged that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 13:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Tiedtke

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

Fails WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep [4] appears to be very strong as does [5]. They feel a bit too positive, but I think both are reliable sources and certainly cover the man in detail. There are a few other, mostly similar, sources. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 is not a WP:GNG-satisfying source. There is no secondary source content from the author, Steven Brown, Sentinel Classical Music Critic. The whole article is subject quoting and reformatted information straight from the subject. That is not independent, as required by the GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I'll disagree with that. It's in part an interview, but also the author spoke to others (McKeans for example) and has some actual research of his own. I'm comfortable with it as independent and reliable. And I've never agreed with the notion that interviews by reliable sources don't count for the GNG. I know a number of people support that, but WP:GNG doesn't have such a requirement as I read it. Hobit (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a sentence or two that is secondary source content created by the author? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you are defining secondary source in this context (I think you and I have discussed the various definitions by different academic disciplines in the past), but I'd say the 3rd through 6th paragraph, as well as the 8th ("At age 90..."), 10th, "Tiedtke sits on United Arts' board of trustees with representatives of some of Central Florida's biggest corporations. Yet he notices that these businesses, much larger than his own, give no more to United Arts than he does." "*Tiedtke has been connected to Central Florida in one way or another for almost his entire life. Though he was born in Toledo, Ohio - where his father and uncle were the prosperous owners of a large supermarket and department store - he and his family began spending parts of the winters in Orlando in the early 1920s. The Tiedtkes lived near Colonial Drive and Magnolia Avenue. A family named McKean was among their neighbors - and two of the McKean boys, Hugh and Keith, became young Tiedtke's friends for life. Hugh, who died in 1995, went on to become Rollins' president and a co-founder of the Morse Museum of American Art in Winter Park. Keith, a retired college professor who lives in Winter Park, said the Tiedtke he met 75 years ago was much like the one he knows today."

I'd call all that reporting rather than just interview questions and answers. Not sure if that's what you are looking for. There is a fair bit more than that. Could you give an example of coverage of a person in a newspaper article that is more like what you feel is required to count as a source? Hobit (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too call all that reporting, repeating of facts without comment or bias, like photocopying. Photocopying does not turn primary sources information into secondary source information, what is needed is author-source commentary, contextualisation, or any transformation of the primary source material. At an absolute minimum, I am looking for an author-sourced adjective applied to the subject, which I did not find. The standard minimum is more like two strung sentences of commentary. Some say 100 words. This source has no commentary, if you exclude the non-independent quotes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we have in the past, we'll have to agree to disagree. Good news reporting (rather than editorializing), like good academic papers, shouldn't have commentary. They report the facts. We want facts, not opinions, in our articles. Requiring a source to have opinions before we can use it to count toward our inclusion guidelines doesn't seem like a standard that's found in WP:N nor one that, IMO, makes sense. We'd have a hard time writing articles on science things with that requirement. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are good, but independent secondary sources are what’s required to justify covering the topic. It is a straight reading of WP:N, and it is the policy WP:PSTS that requires some secondary sources no matter how many reports and facts there are. Reports merely repeating facts are not secondary sources. I’d like to keep this topic, but we need evidence (2 sources) that anyone has cared to publish any comment on him. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 March 25, 2016, by Michael McLeod, may be OK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Orlando Magazine and Orlando Sentinel, the former of which still does not have an article, is that they are local media (in particular, this seems to be a problem with the OM). Now, WP:AUD is a guideline for organizations, and I believe there is no consensus to apply it to biographies, but there is also no consensus to ignore it - and IMHO it is something to to consider. A person whose coverage is limited to local (city) media, not even regional, IMHO falls on wrong side of borderline notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ok to be lenient with local coverage for non commercial topics, and tough for commercial topics. Local businesses use their connections to influence favourable coverage. Sports should be considered commercial, if connected to ticket sales. Tiedtke does not at all connected to current commercial interests, and so I don’t think there is reason to suspect non-independence of local coverage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Right, but keep in mind the charity-donations-write about our benefactor angle. Now, charity and such can totally make someone notable, but it would be good to see coverage from independent sources that are less likely to be variations of obituaries penned as thanks for the donations during his lifetime. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my argument above, and an earlier prod (subject fails WP:NBIO as they only have local coverage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you described your reasoning above, but you've linked to WP:NBIO and indicated that they fail this guideline due to their being only local coverage. As you note, local coverage isn't even mentioned in WP:NBIO. And secondly, local in this case is 2.1 Million people in the greater Orlando area.I just don't think it's reasonable to claim someone fails a guideline for a reason not listed in that guideline. I'm fine with an IAR argument (that the guideline *should* say this), and between your two comments I think that's what you are saying. In any case, there are other sources [6] itself is a source and lists a few others. [7]. But yes, those are also local to the area. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good finds. Sufficient coverage in local sources can be an argument something is on the wrong side of borderline. It's not a simple math. I got interested in 'local' coverage few years back when there was a bio of an architect whose only source was an in-depth biography published in church newsletter. Anyway, since [8] does not seem to be peer reviewed, I am afraid I am still leaning towards delete. If it was, however, published in a peer reviewed outlet, or a non-local paper, I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N has no conditions on coverage i.e. local, regional national. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - As written, the stub does not contain enough information to satisfy general notability. After four days in AFD, the article has not been expanded per Heymann~~, indicating that the additional sources are not likely to be out there~~. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Your supposition about the lack of sources is refuted by facts. Your speculation has been torched. Heymann is easily surpassed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Really and truly our inclusion guidelines don't account for the current status of the article... I'd be willing to fix it up, but hate to put work into something that's likely to get deleted. Hobit (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required is policy. Furthermore, the current article is a neutral two-sentence stub cited to one reliable source. Cunard (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Brotemarkle, Ben (2017-04-04). "Florida Frontiers: Winter Park, a haven of culture". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
Brown, Steven (1998-02-22). "John Tiedtke: A Cultural Icon". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
Moore, Roger (2004-12-23). "Benefactor's Legacy Lives in Music, Art". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
McLeod, Michael (2016-03-25). "Still Blooming". Orlando Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
Wigler, Stephen. (1984-02-19). "John Tiedtke shares good fortune with community" (pages 1 and 2). Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28. – via Newspapers.com.
Noles, Randy (2015-06-07). "Iron Man of the Arts". Winter Park Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
Vincent, Don (1952-08-25). "Cattle Clatter". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
Sanchez, Dina (2001-11-15). "Business Leaders To Be Honored Tonight". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
"Rollins College Trustee To Get CHIEF Award". Orlando Evening Star. 1972-01-26. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
"John Tiedtke Engaged". Orlando Evening Star. 1948-08-10. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
"John Tiedtke Takes Bride". Orlando Evening Star. 1948-11-02. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
DeMarko, Sharon (1973-04-08). "Askew and the Arts: Setting Excellence Standards". Pensacola News Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
Noles, Randy (2015-12-23). "The Hugh We Never Knew". Winter Park Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
"Lettuce Harvesting Booms On 420-Acre Shawnee Farms". The Miami News. 1946-01-29. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
Irwin, David. "John M. Tiedtke (1907-2004): Treasurer, Trustee and Supporter". Rollins College. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.

Sources with quotes

Brotemarkle, Ben (2017-04-04). "Florida Frontiers: Winter Park, a haven of culture". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article notes:
John Tiedtke was another important figure in the cultural development of Winter Park. Tiedtke vacationed in Florida with his family in the 1920s. In the 1930s, he was very successful in the state’s sugar industry, and he moved to Winter Park in 1948.
The Winter Park Bach Festival was established in 1935. Tiedtke served as president of the event from 1950 until his death in 2004 at the age of 97.
“The Bach Festival was started by a very dynamic woman, a Mrs. Sprague-Smith, and she did a great job of creating it and getting it going,” Tiedtke remembered in a 1995 interview. “In 1950, she died suddenly. I was on the board, and nobody else on the board wanted the responsibility of trying to run it and keep it going, so I finally agreed to do it. Then, for two or three years, Hugh McKean, the president of Rollins, and I kept trying to find somebody to run it, and we couldn’t. He finally suggested that I just take the title of president because I’d been running it anyway.”
Brown, Steven (1998-02-22). "John Tiedtke: A Cultural Icon". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article notes:
That sort of commitment is beyond most of us. But John Tiedtke's example will be before us again as of Thursday, when the 63rd annual Bach Festival of Winter Park begins.
Since 1950, Tiedtke has been the festival's leader - not only running it but helping foot the bill for it. He has pitched in with a variety of the area's other cultural groups too.
He has served Rollins College in several capacities, including a 20-year stint as its treasurer. He has helped support the Enzian Cinema Cafe in Maitland - which his daughter, Tina, founded. He has given $100,000 a year to United Arts of Central Florida since it was founded in 1988.
Tiedtke's real business is a group of sugar, citrus and corn farms near Lake Okeechobee. He has done everything else as a sideline.
Moore, Roger (2004-12-23). "Benefactor's Legacy Lives in Music, Art". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article notes:
The arts in Central Florida lost a giant on Tuesday. John M. Tiedtke, local businessman, philanthropist and tireless patron of the arts, died at 97.
...
Tiedtke was born Sept. 15, 1907, in Toledo, Ohio, into a wealthy family -- they owned a supermarket and department store in Toledo.
He created even more wealth by investing in sugar, citrus and corn farms on land near Lake Okeechobee. Land companies, development companies, Shawnee Cattle and Atlas Sugar were among his holdings.
But it was what he did with that wealth that has had so much impact.
He spent millions bringing great music, film and art to his adopted home -- Central Florida.
McLeod, Michael (2016-03-25). "Still Blooming". Orlando Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article ntoes:
Enzian owes its existence to John Tiedtke, whose family owned a prosperous department store in Toledo, Ohio, and had a winter home in Orlando at the corner of Hillcrest Street and Magnolia Avenue. Tiedtke made Winter Park his permanent home as an adult, tending to the family’s investments in South Florida farmland and becoming a savior to nearly every arts organization in town, including the Bach Festival, Florida Symphony Orchestra, Orlando Museum of Art, Orlando Opera, and Festival of Orchestras—all that besides being a founder/funder of United Arts of Central Florida.
Tiedtke’s love of the arts drew him close to people of similar tastes. His best friend from boyhood on was another hugely influential Central Florida arts philanthropist and cultural advocate, Rollins College president and Morse Museum co-founder Hugh McKean, who saved priceless Tiffany stained-glass windows from the wrecking ball. And Tiedtke’s wife was a woman who was raised alongside the Danube, in the City of Music, home to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert.
Her name was Sylvia Southard. She was a princess and a survivor.
...
Sylvia met John Tiedtke after the war, while visiting relatives in Winter Park. They married in 1948 and had two children, Philip and Tina, with whom they would summer in the family castle, where one of Sylvia’s favorite activities was taking the children hiking up through the mountain passes, enjoying the wild Alpine flowers they saw along the way. Among them was a rare, velvety blue, trumpet-shaped bloom called enzian. In 1985, when Tina Tiedtke took up the cause of creating an alternative art movie house for Orlando, the seed money for the enterprise came from her art-loving father, while its name owed its inspiration to the rarest of the flowers she’d seen on those mountain treks with her mother.
Wigler, Stephen. (1984-02-19). "John Tiedtke shares good fortune with community" (pages 1 and 2). Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
He bought more and more municipal bonds. By the time Florida's economy began to revive, in 1938, John Tiedtke had made a fortune of his own. He went on to make — and continues to make — an even greater fortune in the Everglades in the sugar business.
...
For as little as $10 an acre, sometimes for as little as unpaid back taxes, Tiedtke bought several hundred acres in the Everglads and began cultivating sugar. The business is called Shawnee Farms and now consists of vast tracts of land cultivated in sugar cane.
...
When Tiedtke wasn't spending his time on his Everglads plantations, he was living in Winter Park, and there his association with Rollins College began. During the spring semesters, he taught photography classes. By the 1940s, he began teaching business courses. He still goes every day to a rented office on the Rollins campus where he spends time working on his farms' business, on his own investments and on the business of the arts in Central Florida.
Noles, Randy (2015-06-07). "Iron Man of the Arts". Winter Park Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article notes:
By the time Sinclair arrived, the society and its annual festival had for decades been the personal domain of Tiedtke, a shrewd businessman who had made his fortune growing sugar, citrus and corn in South Florida. McKean had asked his boyhood friend to take charge in 1950, when founding society President Isabelle Sprague-Smith died and the organization’s future seemed in doubt.
The no-nonsense Tiedtke proved a fortuitous choice. He loved music — he played a little piano, but mostly enjoyed listening ---— and was a consistent and generous donor to community-based arts organizations. At Rollins, he had been treasurer and chairman of the board of trustees.
...
Tiedtke died the following year at 97, and to the end was cajoling Central Florida businesspeople to do their civic duty and give more to the arts. In fact, Sinclair’s continued presence in Winter Park can be counted among the plain-spoken philanthropist’s many legacies.
Just before Tiedtke’s death, Rollins established the John M. Tiedtke Endowed Chair of Music. For once, the man for whom the chair was named wasn’t asked to write a check.
Others contributed generously, including an anonymous $250,000 donation that was later revealed to have come from one Fred McFeely Rogers, Class of ’51, a music composition major who became TV’s Mister Rogers and befriended the Sinclairs during his frequent Winter Park visits.
Vincent, Don (1952-08-25). "Cattle Clatter". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
John Tiedtke, treasurer and vice-president of Rollins College is doing some diversified farming at his Shawnee Farm just over the line in Glades County, a few miles from here.
When Tiedtke bought the property about 1937 it was with the intention of raising sugar cane. This he has done successfully and this year will produce about 1,500 acres of it. Then he began to grow lettuce, built a packing house to handle the crop.
It was the lettuce that helped him get in the cattle business, according to his manager, Otto Larson. Disposal of the waste from the packing house posed something of a problem so Tiedtke bought a few cattle to feed. And three years ago he went into the cow business seriously.
Sanchez, Dina (2001-11-15). "Business Leaders To Be Honored Tonight". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article notes:
Junior Achievement, in its annual recognition of Orlando-area business leaders, will also induct three people into its Mid-Florida Business Hall of Fame:
...
John Tiedtke, head of the Bach Festival in Winter Park and a sugar-cane industry executive.
...
John Tiedtke. As president of Eastgate Farms and Shawnee Farms, two sugar-cane plantations near Lake Okeechobee, Tiedtke has left his mark on the South Florida industry.
But it has been his passion for the arts, rather than his ardor for agriculture, that brought him to prominence in Central Florida.
Back in 1949, Tiedtke breathed life into the Florida Symphony Orchestra and continued to support the group until its end in 1993.
More notably, he has headed the Bach Festival of Winter Park for more than 50 years.
"Rollins College Trustee To Get CHIEF Award". Orlando Evening Star. 1972-01-26. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Rollins College trustee John Meyer Tiedtke is one of eight distinguished Floridians to receive "C.H.I.E.F." awards as "Champions of Higher Independent Education in Florida" at the annual Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida (ICUF) banquet, to be held at Walt Disney World's Contemporary Hotel, Thursday.
...
Tiedtke was born in Toledo Ohio and attended Culver Military Academy. He received his AB degree from Dartmouth College and an MCS degree from the Dartmouth Amos Tuck School of Business Administration.
"John Tiedtke Engaged". Orlando Evening Star. 1948-08-10. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Announcement is made by Prince and Princess Alfred Hohenlohe, Stainach, Austria, of the engagement of Princess Hohenlohe's daughter, Sylvia Southard, to John Tiedtke, son of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Tiedtke, Dorr St., Toledo, Ohio.
"John Tiedtke Takes Bride". Orlando Evening Star. 1948-11-02. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Of wide social interest in the North is the marriage of Miss Sylvia Maria Southard of Toledo O., to John M. Tiedtke of Toledo and Orlando, which took place Saturday afternoon in the chapel of Collingwood Presbyterian Church, Toledo. Dr. R. Lincoln Long officiated before an altar banked with woodwardia ferns, white chrysanthemums and pompoms. The immediate families were present.
DeMarko, Sharon (1973-04-08). "Askew and the Arts: Setting Excellence Standards". Pensacola News Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Individuals honored by the governor have also donated years of energies to initiating and perpetuating fine arts as paragons of tradition.
John Tiedtke of Winter Park has been president of the 38-year active Bach Festival Society, America's second oldest commemoration of the master's music. Active in founding the Florida Symphony Orchestra of which he has served on the board since its inception, Tiedtke was founding director of Channel 24, Central Florida's Educational Television Station, and the Central Florida Council of Arts and Sciences.
Noles, Randy (2015-12-23). "The Hugh We Never Knew". Winter Park Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article notes:
Some were lucky enough to join McKean and his childhood friend John Tiedtke for one of the duo’s legendary lunches. Tiedtke, a wealthy sugar cane grower, also headed the Bach Festival Society of Winter Park and was a past professor, dean, treasurer and vice president of Rollins College, which McKean led as president from 1951 to 1969.
...
The intelligence assignment was likely a result of his travel abroad; he and Tiedtke had traipsed across Europe together in 1936, ostensibly to tour the continent’s great museums and concert halls. The navy’s intelligence units were actively seeking Americans who had spent time overseas.
"Lettuce Harvesting Booms On 420-Acre Shawnee Farms". The Miami News. 1946-01-29. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
With 1,500 crates per day passing through the packing plants, lettuce harvesting on the 520-acre tract of Shawnee farms near here is now in full swing. Owned by John Tiedtke, Shawnee farms is experiencing its most successful lettuce season this year.
Irwin, David. "John M. Tiedtke (1907-2004): Treasurer, Trustee and Supporter". Rollins College. Archived from the original on 2020-02-28. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
The article notes:
John M. Tiedtke was born on September 15, 1907 in Toledo, Ohio. His father, Ernest Tiedtke owned a grocery store. As a young man he attended the Culver Military Academy. From 1920 to 1921 John Tiedtke studied music at Rollins College and in 1926 he attended Dartmouth College where he received an Artium Baccalaureatus Degree in 1930. He was a member of the Sigma Nu fraternity. He furthered his education by attending Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Business administration, and graduated with an M.C.S Degree in 1932. He then worked for two years as an accountant at the firm of Widemen and Madden in Toledo. After the Great Depression struck America, Tiedtke moved to Florida to assist his uncle’s business.[1]
...
When John M. Tiedtke wasn’t working, he spent much of his leisure time playing tennis or pursing his musical interests. He was a founding member of the Florida Symphony Orchestra. He made generous donations to both the Rollins College Music and Theater Departments. Tiedtke’s most notable contribution to the arts was his involvement in the Bach Festival. Since1950 he had served as the president of the Bach Festival and turned the program into the high quality performances that it is today.[3]

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow John Tiedtke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Tiedtke has received significant coverage in reliable sources in the Orlando Sentinel in 1984, 1998, and 2004. He received significant coverage in Winter Park Magazine in 2015 and in Orlando Magazine in 2016.
Florida Today said Tiedtke "was another important figure in the cultural development of Winter Park" who "was very successful in the state’s sugar industry".
The Orlando Magazine noted that Tiedtke was "a savior to nearly every arts organization in town, including the Bach Festival, Florida Symphony Orchestra, Orlando Museum of Art, Orlando Opera, and Festival of Orchestras—all that besides being a founder/funder of United Arts of Central Florida".
The Orlando Sentinel said, "The arts in Central Florida lost a giant on Tuesday. John M. Tiedtke, local businessman, philanthropist and tireless patron of the arts, died at 97. ... Tiedtke was born Sept. 15, 1907, in Toledo, Ohio, into a wealthy family -- they owned a supermarket and department store Tiedtke's in Toledo. He created even more wealth by investing in sugar, citrus and corn farms on land near Lake Okeechobee. Land companies, development companies, Shawnee Cattle and Atlas Sugar were among his holdings. But it was what he did with that wealth that has had so much impact. He spent millions bringing great music, film and art to his adopted home -- Central Florida."
Tiedtke was a professor at Rollins College which established the John M. Tiedtke Endowed Chair of Music. The chair was funded in part by an anonymous $250,000 donation from Fred Rogers who is TV's Mister Rogers.
He married Princess Sylvia Southard, the daughter of Prince Alfred of Hohenlohe-Langenburg in Stainach, Austria ~~(the son of Ernst II, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg)~~ this is wrong because the Prince Alfred who was the son of Ernst II, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg was born in and died in 1911. Revised at 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC).
He made his fortune from Eastgate Farms and Shawnee Farms, two sugar-cane plantations near Lake Okeechobee.
In 1972, he was one of eight Floridians to receive a "C.H.I.E.F." award ("Champions of Higher Independent Education in Florida") from the Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida.
In 1973, Florida Governor Reubin Askew gave him one of the "Governor's Awards for the Arts". Tiedtke was the founding director of Channel 24 (now WUCF-TV).
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not require non-local coverage. Furthermore, the Orlando Sentinel is a major regional newspaper, not a small local newspaper. Even WP:AUD (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience) (which applies to companies, not people) says that "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." WP:AUD says that even regional media is a "strong indication of notability".
That Tiedtke was the subject of multiple articles in the regional newspaper Orlando Sentinel over a period of decades (1984, 1998, and 2004) strongly establishes he is notable.
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for review of the sources found by Cunard today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some great work by Cunard. I will see if someone is inclined to start adding to the article. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Cunard makes a convincing case for notability of this person. Dream Focus 23:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I WISH that User:Cunard would heed some of the advice in WP:THREE. The length and detail of his source listing is impressive, but often on examination the coverage is too thin, and he may be considered to have a reputation for attempted baboozling of discussion by WP:Reference bombing. Did Cunard read anything he wrote (or was it machine produced). Did anyone else? Can they point to the two-or-three *best* sources for demonstrating that others have published coverage of the subject? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SmokeyJoe If you had actually read the sources cited in this article, you would realize your comments are unfounded. Indeed, other editors would apologize and graciously admit they were wrong. And that this discussion is a waste of valuable editors' time.7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read enough to come to a conclusion to !vote “keep” and stopped there. Is that not good enough. I do not agree that my comments were unfounded. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe You are right. I was wrong and apologize. Too many notes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great work on the article, 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) and StrayBolt (talk · contribs)! SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I read everything I write. Nothing is machine produced, which I wish were possible because it would save me a significant amount of time. For Google Books and Newspapers.com sources, I manually type the text included in my quotes.

I try to provide nearly all of the useful reliable sources I have found in the hopes that if I don't have the time to work on the article, another editor will be able to use those sources to expand the article (as I responded to 7&6=thirteen's message here). I am very grateful to 7&6=thirteen and StrayBolt for their work on the article. Regarding WP:THREE, I generally list the strongest sources I have found at the beginning of my list of sources.

Cunard (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cunard, ok, thanks, great. I’m impressed, it would exhaust me. I think in the past I’ve seen you list less impressive sources. If the best are at the top that’s great. I was apprehensive when I saw the list to review, and “delete” means that virtually everyone is to be faulted. Like I said, this time, I had only read the top few before I saw that this was a “keep”. I also note that you find things that my searches did not. Do you have special access to paywalled sources? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gut feel, from reading Cunard sources. All of them feel questionably non-independent, but not offensively so, especially there being no hint of self promotion of himself through these sources. Some of them casually report his passing. There is more than enough secondary source coverage, reliable source coverage, and significant or depth of coverage. Tiedtke should be included. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG No compliance with WP:Before. Nominator chose to disregard available sources. Referencing ~~can and should be~~ has improved, but the sources exist and are cited. So this article is not what it was when repeatedly nominated for deletion, and now ~~should be is~~ easily surpasses ~~up to~~ WP:HEY standard. Clearly an important philanthropist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Tiedtke's, per WP:BEFORE (part C). Pburka (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to User:Cunard references and User:7&6=thirteen improvements, passes WP:GNG. I was initially looking to see if he held a named chair while being a professor, but there now is a chair named after him. Will try to add a few more refs. StrayBolt (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the concerns being that language in the current version appears to be a close paraphrase from the obituary, and the last sentence of the lede paragraph is hagiographic, but biographical notability has been satisfied. I expect an apology from User:7&6=thirteen for their incivility, similar to the one already provided to User:SmokeyJoe. Like SmokeyJoe, I have no apology for my previous !vote, which was reasonable, and did not warrant an insult. 7+6 could simply have pinged me and asked me to change my !vote -- which I have done anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for changing your vote. Reasonable minds may differ on voting history. Hopefully we can all learn for the future. Next time I'll ping you. In any event, apology extended. We are all volunteers and working in common cause. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any argument invoking local coverage is bunk (it's Orlando, Florida, not Orlando, Oklahoma, and should we disregard The New York Times coverage of prominent New Yorkers?). WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Coverage in multiple independent sources exist. The essay WP:ITSLOCAL discourages the argument that local coverage is a valid reason for deletion. Note that coverage also exists in a Toledo Blade obituary [9]. The article can and should be improved with a tone more removed from the laudatory nature of some obituaries, but Articles for Deletion is not Articles for Improvement. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your criticism of the laudatory tone is understood. The problem is that his life, its purpose, arc and direction, and the reporting of it, are set into that frame. WP:Peacock really doesn't apply. Trimming out that material is a mischaracterization by omission; and it plays into the hands of those editors who want to excise material because it doesn't extensively mention him. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The User:Cunard makes it clear. An@ss_koko^(speak)^(war) 21:21, 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. Tone 22:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Thomas

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

Fails WP:Notability_(people). I was unable to find significant coverage for the article subject, only a few passing mentions. Sources in the article now are unreliable. The previous AFD conclusion was to delete. Perhaps this should be salted if the decision is again to delete. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the three references are reliable and a search didn't turn up anything supporting a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Most sources seem to be tabloids with questionable reliability; there are quite a few of them, though. The subject has done some TV work, but not enough to meet WP:NACTOR, in my opinion. I'll defer to others as regards her modelling career and I will update my vote if better sources can be located. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 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. Tone 22:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Workshops on Wireless LAN

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

A minor series of three IEEE meetings. The only references are to primary sources. There is no significant coverage in Google. Most of the google hits for "IEEE Workshops on Wireless LAN" or "IEEE Workshop on Wireless LAN" are either to Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and primary sources. Was likely created by a user with a COI, judging by their other contributions. ST47 (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is just an article about some conferences with no significant coverage or notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 02:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's author did nothing to establish the notability of this event, which seems more run of the mill than anything.TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiis Holoni, Arizona

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

I get nothing for this one except geoclickbait and a name on a topo map which mysteriously appears round about an intersection in the desert. It geolocates to a spot in an arroyo with nothing around it except a recently built church near a house, a few miles to the west. I'm guessing the anme may be Navaho but I have no idea what it might mean; in any case, there doesn't ever seem to have been anything here. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article starter should be notified on their talk page when the article is nominated for deletion. @Onel5969: Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero results on newspapers.com, no Google results with "Navajo" or anything in Books either. First appeared on 1969 topo but not in 1982. Locale in the 1986 National Gazetteer. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a populated place so fails WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to mean (with a bit of WP:SYNTH) "the place where cottonwood trees existed" in the Navajo language ([10], [11]). However I could find no sources other than maps.----Pontificalibus 12:55, 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. Sandstein 11:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kadirur

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

Unremarkable secondary school. Sources that would contribute to GNG not found. b uidhe 15:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 15:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seemingly all search examples only point to directory listings etc, no independent notability. Fails NSCHOOL.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vridhi Jain

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

The usual PR about a teen beauty pageant contestant. The refs are the usual PR DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DO not Delete as she is the national beauty pageant title holder along with the Continental title. The article only mentions her achievements and her work. More references can be added and the article can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayat1998 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any evidence that this passes WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Instead the article can be worked to improve as the lady holds the prestigious title with many coverages available on internet. Also, the another titleholder Aayushi Dholakia from the same pageant is significantly famous. These two girls hold the prestigious teen titles of India. The editors can improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aayat18 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 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. Tone 22:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Encantada, Arizona

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

This is a picnic area in Grand Canyon National Park, presumably named for the spectacular view obtained there. Go far enough back and there isn't even a road in the area, much less any indication of a settlement. I get some tourist clickbait and that's it. Possibly it could be redirected to the park but since it doesn't appear to be mentioned there I'm not inclined to do so. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article starter should be notified on their talk page when the article is nominated for deletion. @Onel5969: Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite obviously not a populated place now or ever, another GNIS and mass-stub-production failure. Just look at the decision card and document folders on the GNIS page (or [12]). Not worth a redirect, how many viewpoints are at Grand Canyon? Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a populated place so fails WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Grand Canyon Railway. Sandstein 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willaha, Arizona

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

The text claims this as a "former stop on the Grand Canyon Railway", which I don't believe is true. It is on that line (and you can see MoW equipment and a huge pile of ties in the GMap aerial at this time), but I really doubt that the GCRY ever stopped there in the middle of nowhere. It was a siding on the ATSF, and is referred to a couple of places: for example, this AEC report describes it as an unstaffed ATSF station. Otherwise I get the usual geoclickbait and pictures of GCRY trains, and that's it. I'm not seeing the notability here. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article starter should be notified on their talk page when the article is nominated for deletion. @Onel5969: Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's accurate, I put it there: see [13]. There was at least a sheep ranch in the area. See https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ for getting free access to newspapers.com. There are more hits mentioning it there so will probably pass but if you know me, I'm all for covering it in a main article rather than low-readership stubs when feasible. Reywas92^Talk 23:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Canyon Railway where it's already mentioned. It is detailed here (pdf file pages 17-18). Built for livestock and ore loading, it had a bunkhouse for workers but no evidence it was really a populated place. ----Pontificalibus 15:30, 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 merge to Dissident Prophet. Sandstein 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Prophet discography

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

This is a discography for an unnotable band where not a single album or single has charted in any country. Whilst the main group has got some independent sources, the virtually the entire article was created by one WP:SPA editer Firstade, who also created this discography article JaAlDo (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these album pages also contain no sourced information and are essentially just track lists:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The band are notable with coverage in CrossRythyms and Tollbooth which are reliable music sources but there is no need for a seperate discography page so it should be merged into the Dissident Prophet article and the three album pages redirected to that article as they show no independent notability imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge discography article to the band's article, and Redirect the album articles to the band as well. As stated nicely by Atlantic306 above, the band itself has a little notability but their releases do not. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. I’m not particularly convinced of the band’s notability, but unless that gets sent to AFD, that’s a separate issue, and the merging/redirecting still works. (Not to mention that, if the band’s article were deleted, then it would mean this would all be be deleted all the same, which is the only reasonable alternative here. We simply don’t need separate discography articles for bands with no charting to to document.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, though the recommendation is to merge the discography article to the band's article, there is practically nothing to merge because none of their releases charted and all that's left are album and song titles. If that is the ultimate decision in this AfD, I will do the merge myself in about a minute. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:21, 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. Tone 22:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Carbonara

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

No evidence of notability whatsoever. None of the bands he was allegedly in have WP articles. The private studio he runs is not notable. Nothing is sourced, and no sources are available. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable guitarist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Somehow this article has escaped notice since 2006, when even the style of LinkedIn entry that it is trying to imitate was in its infancy. His early bands are non-notable and the article is probably an attempt to promote his current business. See WP:NOTLINKEDIN, WP:PROMOTION. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 5 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 Bruderhof Communities. Total redirect consensus and per WP:CHEAP. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plough Publishing House

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

This page does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) I think. All publications about this Publishing House I could check were published by the Plough itself (simply on their own website, https://www.plough.com/), excluding only this. I can not check German language sources that are not available online, however this page does not exist in German Wikipedia, or in any other language. The page was created and edited by several accounts, such as this, and this with a probable WP:COI: they probably came from the Bruderhof Communities, the parent organization of this Publishing House. Some of these accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry - (link). My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bruderhof Communities, where it's mentioned. b uidhe 03:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bruderhof Communities sounds like a good compromise since it's mentioned there. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Third !vote to redirect to Bruderhof Communities at least until more sources become available on the publishing house itself.--Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 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. Tone 22:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Music Talent Award

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

Per WP:N. Comatmebro (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per A7. No sources found and it is a event with no coverage or established notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:06, 6 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 Grand Canyon Railway. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodin, Arizona

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

Moving on to Cononino Co., AZ, we have what appears from all evidence to have been a former ATSF water stop, with a water tank, an obviously artificial pond, some fencing, and that's it. Searching doesn't even produce real estate clickbait, and Elwood Lloyd doesn't mention the place. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article starter should be notified on their talk page when the article is nominated for deletion. @Onel5969: Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find a single mention of RR siding or otherwise on newspapers.com Reywas92^Talk 23:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grand Canyon Railway. Built in 1917 for the Pitman Valley Land and Cattle Company as a short spur for cattle and sheep loading, it appears not to have been a populated place. As a station on the Grand Canyon Railway however it is documented in the National Register of Historic Places ([14] page 18 of pdf). It seems reasonable to send people searching for it to the railway article, where it is mentioned in the collapsed route map in the infobox.----Pontificalibus 15:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Dinesh

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

Non-notable stunt master. Of the references used in this article, two are user profiles and the other two are about Hari Dinesh's father. GPL93 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N. Comatmebro (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable stuntman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stuntmen and body doubles, like producers, are very rarely notable. This article ties his notability too close to his family. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 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. Tone 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Nekrasova

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is self-created and self-promotional; no notability. Being covered for 2 days in media as a meme and starring in low-budget softcore porn is not enough to warrant an article. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with people who voted "keep" during the first AfD, less than two months ago. She got non-trivial coverage in a large number of independent third-party sources (currently cited on the page, I removed only one of them after checking). For example, The Cut ([15] and [16]), The Times, Teen Vogue and Vice. The coverage is not just about the Infowars interview, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Therefore, I think she easily passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. easily passes WP:GNG, already survived an AfD by a significant margin. this is the 2nd nomination from the same user (1st nomination was just last month), who appears to have a personal gripe with the subject. Nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption. Pinchofhope (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article subject is not notable and I agree that the article seems self-promotional Kokpep (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Pinchofhope. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources in the article to pass WP:GNG—sources which also discuss the subject in terms of her career as an actress. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article absolutely needs to be cleaned up, but as it stands it clearly demonstrates notability even if you just look at the sources in the article. Self promotion doesn't override the WP:GNG. Michepman (talk) 02:11, 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. It appears notability was asserted, thanks to editors. Note there was a previous AfD under another name; this was also closed as keep. See here. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 14:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Phillips

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

I would be raising this regardless of her recent separation from her husband. This person does not appear to have any significant notability independent of her husband, who is himself not far above the threshold of notability. He is one of the less prominent grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II, and does not have any royal or noble title. See WP:NOTINHERITED. PatGallacher (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and I would argue WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE as well, as she is not well-known outside of tabloid coverage. BonkHindrance (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook example of WP:NOTINHERITED TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm puzzled by the references above to WP:NOTINHERITED. That (influential) essay proposes arguments to be avoided in deletion discussions. Most examples given are of "keep" arguments but no one has suggested "keep" here so these examples do not seem to apply. However it also deprecates two "delete" arguments, one of which is "Delete she's only the U.S. President's wife". So, it seems to me that WP:NOTINHERITED suggests that the nomination here is a poor one and does not focus appropriately. I do have some sympathy with the WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE argument, however. Thincat (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Seeing WP:NOTINHERITED used as a sole reason (when it's not a guideline) for deletion seems misplaced here, because of the exact example it uses for a wife in that essay. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Peter Phillips is 15th in line of succession. Fact that they declined a royal title does not remove their royal lineage nor connection to royalty past or present. This is a question of how far removed from royalty should be considered notable under WP:GNG. I would argue if Peter Phillips is considered notable and included in WP, she should at least be merged into Peter Phillips PenulisHantu (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably merge. A cursory reference in Peter Phillips' article should be sufficient. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a (new) redirect to Peter Phillips. All of the content in this article that would be relevant to the article on Peter Phillips is already in the latter article. What remains is the personal family history of Autumn Phillips, who has always been a private figure who has never carried out public activities (unlike wives of US presidents). In fact, one could argue that there should never have been an article about her. She is a classic WP:BLP1E, that one event being married to a peripheral member of the British royal family whose own notability is borderline. Risker (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her marriage to Peter Phillips does not make her notable automatically, but the coverage she has received does. Is anyone disputing that she has has received significant coverage in reliable sources? I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies here, the coverage relates to a number of different events: her wedding, the birth of her kids, the conversion from Catholicism and her divorce. She has made several public interviews, so she is not exactly avoiding public life. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She also seems to have regularly participated in public events as a member of the royal family ([17], [18]), so WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE doesn't convince me. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pax:Vobiscum. The Daily Mail is not considered an acceptable source for establishing notability or as references for BLPs. Risker (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying they should, I was merely pointing out that she has been regularly been participating in public events. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find examples of her regularly participating in events as published in acceptable reference sources. What you've posted there isn't valid for the purposes of this discussion. Risker (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating two different things. (1) She has received coverage in reliable sources as shown by the references already in the article, unless of course you don't think the Daily Telegraph counts as reliable. (2) She has participated in public events as a member of the royal family as shown by the Daily Mail articles. Here are other articles showing her participating in public events: [19][20][21]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split roughly evenly between keep, merge and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Examples of "other articles" can give the wrong signal. The BBC example titled Queen attends landmark Braemar Gathering with content, "The Queen was accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles and her eldest grandson Peter Phillips, and his wife Autumn." is the opposite of significant coverage and at the same time is the definition of passing mention. The example might be acceptable for content but does nothing to advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly said that those links were simply to prove that she participates in public events as a member of the royal family, making WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE irrelevant to this discussion. What do you think about all the sources already in the article, would you say they constitute a significant coverage or not? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now added a few new sources to the article and replaced some questionable ones. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Merge to Peter Phillips: Not notable for a stand alone article per Nom, that notability is not inherited, and other reasoning: See "Comments". Otr500 (talk)

Comments: User Pax:Vobiscum, that stated "...the coverage relates to a number of different events: "her wedding" (to Peter Phillips), "the birth of her kids" (from the marriage to Peter Phillips), "the conversion from Catholicism and her divorce" (related to Peter Phillips). She has made several public interviews, so she is not exactly avoiding public life.". The last sentence is covered extensively in Who is a low-profile individual?. Any notability of the subject is directly related to her marriage to Peter Phillips. "Low-profile" "is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event.". Neither are "titled", nor their children, they are not "working royals", and that does give credibility to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.

The opening sentence of the article states: "...is the wife of Peter Phillips...". The only thing likely to change in the future would be, "is the ex-wife of Peter Phillips". Any "appearances" with Peter, the grandson of the Queen, even if involving "public functions" the Queen is attending, would normally be as the wife of Peter in non-self-promotional functions.

The entire lead provides zero notability of the subject not connected with Peter Phillips. The entire article with 29 references provides no independent notability, certainly not in the lead or "Early life" sections, and the bulk of the article is found in the "Marriage to Peter Phillips" and "Children" sections. To fans of "including everything in the world on Wikipedia" (encyclopedic or possibly not) that is likely to be hard to understand. There are numerous sources that state the subject and her husband are considered "low-keyed" or maintaining a "low profile". It could be argued: "But they reportedly were interviewed and photographed by Hello! magazine, for an apparent fee of £500,000.": Please see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual#Behavior pattern and activity level.

Sources need to "support a claim of notability" over just supporting content. When notability is called into question we cannot just assert there is notability. There are what looks like 9 links to The Daily Telegraph (counts as one towards notability), along with around 20 other references, and we still have an article captioned as "the wife of Peter Phillips". Regardless of any rhetoric, defending of the article, or The Daily Telegraph, that is what is presented, but may soon be the above mentioned "ex-wife of Peter Phillips".

I joined Wikipedia because I liked the idea of sharing knowledge freely with the world so I am not a fan of the The Daily Telegraph. Partly because they have already received compensation for what they want us to pay for again, but also because they do print tabloid type money making news stories. Unless consensus was to change the reliability of The Daily Telegraph is not questioned. That is not the point. A misconception is that several references do not automatically confer notability. This can be seen by a more common trend that comments such as "Keep, the article has plenty of reliable sources", are not generally counted as valid.

I would be so open to constructive comments providing independent notability (since I could not find any) that could be added to the lead (and referenced in the body), not related to Peter Phillips, the marriage or children, or the crown. I don't see that it exists. Without that, we are just supporting the creation of a pseudo biography that includes If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all. This can be seen as an easy rebuttal of a presumption of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously she is known because of her association with the British royal family. Is anyone associated with the Royal family notable? Absolutely not. How do we determine which are notable and which aren't? We see if there is significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:NOTINHERITED actually makes this exact point: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wonder if this might have gone already had I voted 'delete' rather than 'merge'. In any case, I am fully with Otr500 above. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was extensive, often front-page, coverage of her, back in the day. And it focused far more on her, than her husband. Some examples are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Easily and independently meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG, a thank you to Nfitz for providing all of the links. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with the 2 previous points above - its obvious to me. 175.33.49.35 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her renunciation of her Catholicism was much publicised and remains a discussion point in theological lectures at many tertiary institutions world-wide. 2001:8003:D857:6601:61BD:F7B7:C384:106 (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG thank you to Nitz. Lightburst (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz and just as her being a part of the British royal family. I also want to point out that in WP:NOTINHERITED, which a few used as an argument for deletion, has one example about marriage -- and it's used to show as a reason not to use for deletion. It even goes on to say about not inherited: "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." I personally think being a part of the British royal family does denote a public position, but I'm sure some might disagree. Either way, it's just an additional thought, since the new sources added pass WP:GNG. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:47, 11 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 Legion of Super-Heroes enemies. Sandstein 12:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grimbor the Chainsman

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

Fails to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. I don't see this character being notable. But bold merge instead of prodding and AFDing all the time (like I usually do) when I don't see notability usually equals a less disruptive outcome IMO. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with either List of Legion of Super-Heroes enemies or List of minor DC Comics characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:28, 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. Tone 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Czech Chemical Societies

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

This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a BEFORE in Czech and all independent sources found were just citing the bulletin of this organization. No SIGCOV. b uidhe 18:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above, but perhaps the Czech Chemical Society is worth an article written by someone who knows about science in that country. --Bduke (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gorkha National Liberation Front. Sandstein 12:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gorkha National Liberation Front (C.K. Pradhan)

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

There are two sources in the article which are about Pradhan's death who is a district level politician and did not pass our notability criteria. Via google search it does not seem to me that the subject will pass WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Gorkha National Liberation Front. For separatist movements and separatist political parties WP:ILLCON and WP:CRIME have relevance. The GNLF(C) is discussed in Barun Roy's Gorkhas and Gorkhaland. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:40, 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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. LaRocca

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

The only sources I can find for this article are an obituary and a couple of passing refs in snippet view. It’s therefore not clear that the subject passes our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Reads like an obituary and does not have enough sources. I wouldn't oppose if a better sourced version were to be created, but now I don't see how this article fits into an encyclopedia. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 14:52, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myndy Crist

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Article hinges completely on their IMDB page and cursory google search doesn't show any mention of this subject outside of routine, typical coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I couldn't find anything that shows this article is notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the subject passes WP:NACTOR—she's played supporting roles in some big films, including Dark Skies (film) and Hanging Up, as well as dozens of guest spots in TV series and smaller roles in several other films. The argument for WP:GNG is a bit weaker, because most of the sources I am finding simply mention her with respect to her roles—but, there are quite a few sources, from Broadway World and Los Angeles Times, among others. The article itself needs some work, but I don't think deletion is necessary in this instance. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her guest roles and smaller roles wouldn't come in to play with WP:NACTOR. I see she had supporting roles in those two films, but I'm not seeing evidence that her role in those movies were significant. Broadway World wouldn't be considered a reliable secondary source. And what La Times article are you referencing? The only two I see only mention the person in a WP:ROUTINE manner and wouldn't constitute the substantial coverage required by GNG. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Sulfurboy, but they do show that the actress has a fairly large body of work, and there are a few more films in which she has had supporting roles, too. I generally consider supporting roles in notable films to be "significant". As for the Los Angeles Times articles, they do seem to be fairly routine, I agree: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-09-10/new-movies-opening-in-la-this-week-sept-15-22-brad-pitt-ad-astra-downton-abbey-Rambo; https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-thursdays-tv-highlights-working-the-engels-on-nbc-20140820-story.html. There are more substantial articles, too, although they come from less reliable sources. But, putting it all together, I think there is enough for a "Weak" Keep—certainly not a "Strong" Keep. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a borderline keep. I agree with Dflaw4 that being a supporting actress in so many movies is an indication of notability. However, relatively little can be found about her in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dflaw4. _SUPER ^ASTIG 03:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source is IMDb which is not reliable, we should not have articles with no reliable sources especially on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now added text and sources to the article. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage of her is minimal, so the article fails WP:GNG. It is not obvious that her supporting roles reaches the bar set by WP:ACTOR. I see that our article and imdb give different birth years (1971 vs 1975), so there is definitely also a question about our ability to write a verifiable article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Had a starring role in a TV series Breaking news with Tim Matheson and Clancy Brown. Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:08, 9 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. Tone 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Bearings

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

Ncorp fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are finding routine distribution announcement coverage but not substantial coverage about the firm itself. There is some book coverage of a legal case involving the company which went to the Supreme Court of Canada (e.g. [22]) but if that is itself notable it would be appropriate to a case page rather than providing notability to one of the parties. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 6 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) 14:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nova Card Game

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

Lacks the required notability. One review in "Arcane". The other source is an exhaustive catalog of all collectible card games ("the first book to catalog every collectible card game ever released"), which is good for verification but not for notability. This game has received extremely little attention after its release[23], and I couldn't find any other books or good sources about it. No obvious redirect target (e.g. no article for the company), so "delete" it is. Fram (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although obscure today, the game's development and upcoming release were published in Dragon. That plus the Arcane review would suggest notability. Guinness323 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dragon bit is all of two sentences though, they're "working on a new collectibe card game" which "will be released this summer". Have they actually reviewed the game once it was released? Fram (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don’t see how it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single review and two passing mentions does not constitute significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:15, 10 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 13:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bapunagar Darpan

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

Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER. Founded in 2019, a newly published local neighbourhood newspaper. No references found. Current references are Facebook and youtube link. PROD reverted so discussion posted. Nizil (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing is reliable or independent. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the local news paper situated in [Bapunagar] and it does have reach to the various regions in [Ahmedabad], This article should not be deleted as it is going to be expanded in future.-Hamza Ghanchi 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by હમઝા ઘાંચી (talk • contribs)

"It's going to be expanded in the future" is not a reason for keeping the article. The only way it will be saved from deletion is by providing references from independent, reliable sources (not Youtube, not Facebook, not a registry proving that about the subject simply Bapunagar Darpan, not a user generated business profile) covering the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 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 13:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Singh Chaudhary

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The actress has never acted in any films and has only appeared in few television reality shows. The content has also been written in advertising manner. Abishe (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Via Google it seems the person appeared in some minor roles. The article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nom and that the article is a pseudo biography. Otr500 (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject ~~might pass WP:GNG but she~~ doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. I think it's ~~far~~ WP:TOOSOON for an article on her. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: On second thoughts, I don't think WP:GNG is met either—unless India West and TellyChakkar are considered reliable sources (the latter, at least, doesn't seem to be). Dflaw4 (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haven't done any notable work. Not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. - The9Man | (talk) 12:46, 5 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. There seems to be consensus to keep this article per WP:NOLY. The general argument for deletion was that WP:OLY only offered a presumption of notability. However, it is worth noting that WP:GNG also uses the word presumed, and that the ultimate standard of notability is consensus in a deletion discussion. Special notability guidelines exist to complement the GNG in fields where coverage may be more sparse. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Blansaer

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

A total lack of WP:RS giving significant attention to this person. There are a few databases and results listings,but nothing that would come close to meeting WP:GNG. Meets WP:NOLY as an Olympian, but this only gives a presumed notability which, when challenged (as here), needs to be substantiated to show that the person indeed at least meets the GNG. Just like with many athletes who competed in the early Olympics, which received a lot less attention, this is not possible with currently available sources. A single listing in Google Books[24], and nothing substantial in the 48 Google hits. Fram (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLY. A couple of recent similar discussions for Olympians at AfD can be found here and here. Both were kept. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One closed as no consensus, and the other is not comparable as the athlete had many more accomplishments, and finding sources for a North Korean was considered harder than usual. At the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Change to WP:NOLY, most commenters agree that WP:NOLY indicates presumed notability, but that in the end (e.g. when challenged at AfD) the subject must meet the general WP:GNG rule of multiple indepth sources, not just some database listings or mentions in sports results. Fram (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SNGs are useful rule of thumb, but not carte blanche to create an article based only on database entries. Athletes such as Blansaer should be listed at List of competitors at the 1920 Summer Olympics or similar. b uidhe 03:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfunctory Google search is nowhere near sufficient to overcome presumption of notability here. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets our notability guidelines. Besides, just because Google doesn't give you enough hits, doesn't mean there no further information on the person. I am pretty sure our Belgian Wikipedians could help find some real, printed, sources.--Darwinek (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a Belgian Wikipedian, I can read the sources in Dutch (and French, German and English). They are sorely lacking for this athlete though. Fram (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going to basically copy and paste my response from the other AfD: WP:NOLYMPICS doesn't exist because someone decided out of nowhere that all Olympians are notable or to override general notability guidelines. With arguably the exception of the earliest editions, but certainly by 1920, people who attended the Olympics were not just picked out of a hat, they were elite athletes at the national level. In 2020 on Google, yes, the only thing that is readily available is that he participated in one event at the Games, but the fact that he was there in the first place suggests that he had at least some success in his home country, which is probably difficult to find information about unless you have access to Belgian publications from the 1910s and 1920s. WP:NOLYMPICS exists, therefore, because consensus determined that if the individual was at the Games, there is a significant likelihood that sufficient sources for a biography exist that may just be difficult to access. My work is on pre-1952 Egyptian athletes, and information beyond their Olympic appearance is difficult to find in Arabic online, let alone in English. But I happen to have access to newspapers and sports journals from that era and there is plenty of coverage on all of them that would satisfy WP:N with ease. For a country like Belgium, which at the time had a better-developed press and sporting infrastructure, there must exist coverage of all of their Olympians that would easily satisfy WP:N, I just can't access it (or at least read it). WP:NOLYMPICS represents that consensus that these sources likely exist for all Olympians, even if we cannot find them, and so we can avoid discussions such as this and presume notability unless there is convincing evidence otherwise. Canadian Paul 06:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "presume notability unless there is convincing evidence otherwise. " One cannot prove such a negative. This is why the burden is always on those claiming that something is notable: they have to produce the evidence for it, not just claim that it exists and demand that others have to show (how?) that it doesn't. Fram (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. WP:BURDEN relates to verifiability, not notability. SNGs create presumption of notability which means that the burden is one those arguing for non-notability to demonstrate that. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The over application of the olympic notability guidelines has become absurd. The source here in no way shows notability, and no one has identified any other source that does so or not. The SNG were supposed to suggest what cases it is worth looking deeply for sources, they are not supposed to force inclusion of articles in the total absence of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously POINT-y nomination. This has been litigated to death. Olympians are notable. Period. If you don't like it, get consensus to change the guideline, don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Smartyllama (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOLY. Because the subject competed a very long time ago, it's important to avoid a recency bias. KaisaL (talk) 08:13, 7 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. Tone 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Capital

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

While the article appears well referenced at a glance, I am afraid there is next to no evidence of it passing WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. All sources are either mentions in passing, or rewritten press releases (Businesswire...) about routine operations. Please note that even WSJ or NYT tend to reprint such press releases, for example [25] links a press release near the bottom. If we remove press release and worse (PRIMARY/in-passing) there would be ZERO sources here. This is just a run-of-the-mill promotional WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill venture capital firm, which are not automatically notable, even if they have famous clients or investments. Throwing around cash does not make one notable. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 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 13:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MiG Arogan

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

can't find any sources to verify the billboard claim, no other coverage and pretty much everything here is primary or unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to have voices from the Caribbean and from the hip hop communities help judge what is notable source material and what is unreliable. None of the citations are primary. I hesitate to delete articles like this when there are so many other articles by musicians at similar stages in career with similar, but English, sources not being flagged.--Heathart (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae. I am not finding reliable sources, and if the sources don't exist to write a good article, it shouldn't exist regardless of how much we like the article topic. b uidhe 14:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and for want of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources might not be primary, but neither are they reliable. In 2020, everybody knows we are a charity whose mission is to write about notable people, places, things, and ideas, not a free web-host to lift up people. It's longstanding practice for the whole community, not just experts, to decide on notability. For what it's worth, I am a member of the executive committee of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law section of the New York State Bar Association, I live in New York City, and have edited many articles on outsider artists who are nonetheless notable musicians. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure that "everyone" knows what the purpose of Wikipedia is. There is such a long history of inprint items that look at some level and claim on some level to be encyclopedic but allowed people to pay to be included (such as Who's Who), so there may be some expectation that Wikipedia can be gamed as well. We also have articles that have existed for over 14 years that are actually just campaign brochures for candidates who were never elected, so it is still easy for people to get the wrong impression which is why we have to try harder to remove articles that do not fit our guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 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 keep. Tone 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neonfly

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

Zero evidence of notability, seems like a vanity page. Google doesn't show any news or other RS on/about them at all. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ as found an album review here at Metal Storm which is a WikiProject Music reliable source but more is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing to full keep as have found some extra reliable sources coverage here,here,here,here,here which also shows that they have been on multiple international tours across Europe so have a claim to pass criteria 4 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article suffers from bad sourcing, I see enough to pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 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 keep. KaisaL (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gérald Bertheloot

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

Meets WP:NOLY as an Olympian, but fails WP:GNG as there are no significant, indepth sources about him (and meeting GNG is a requirement under NOLY as well, just being an Olympian is an indication of possible notability, but not a default pass). Note that the article (based on a database source) even gets his name wrong, he was Gerard Bertheloot, not "Gérald". All I was able to find was some local stuff from his city Kortrijk, and one picture in an old local newspaper.

Contrary to current competitors at the Olympic, many competitors at the early games (pre-1940 roughly) are barely documented or remembered, and got little attention at the time either. This is one of those who is barely something beyond a name in a database, and thus not fit to be the subject of an enwiki article. Fram (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, so meets WP:NOLY. A couple of recent similar discussions for Olympians at AfD can be found here and here. Both were kept. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Change to WP:NOLY makes clear, meeting WP:NOLY gives someone a presumed notability, which has to be demonstrated when challenged. You are simply restating the presumption, without any evidence. The first Afd closed as "no consensus", hardly an overwhelming reason to keep this one. The second is about someone with a much larger palmares, and where there is trouble accessing sources (at least more trouble than with sources for Western athletes). Fram (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is neither clear or indeed current. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion started on 31 January 2020, not archived, is not "current"? Fram (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's had no input for the best part of a month. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And (Personal attack removed) has rather predictably just commented, therefore extending the time until archival for another 30 days. Seriously, this is all getting quite disruptive and a huge waste of time. Might be time to escalate things if it continues. Smartyllama (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that Lugnuts has put in a lot of time here to create articles on Olympians. If you Google search them and find multiple sources which can be used to expand them, great. But when you search and literally find nothing but the database mentioning one Olympic appearance, how do we expand ones like this? I think in cases where they'll only ever remain database stubs we should redirect into lists like List of competitors at the 1928 Summer Olympics. When creating the stubs I would check to see if there are further sources available for later expansion, if not then perhaps consider merging into a list which gives birth and place of birth dates of each competitor. I think this a wider issue, not just one off Olympians but villages (even a lot of ones I created), moths etc which currently only have stark database mentions. At the end of the day we want to write an encyclopedia and if there's nothing which can be used to even write a 1 kb stub we should consider a way to convey the same info in lists without readers having to search through hundreds of pages...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After the last two failed AfDs, the proper place for this discussion is the policy page, not individual articles, and the discussion linked above does not seem to have led to anything clear at all. I'm going to essentially copy and paste what I wrote the last time: WP:NOLYMPICS doesn't exist because someone decided out of nowhere that all Olympians are notable or to override general notability guidelines. With arguably the exception of the earliest editions, but certainly by 1928, people who attended the Olympics were not just picked out of a hat, they were elite athletes at the national level. In 2020 in English, yes, the only thing that is readily available is that he participated in one event at the Games, but the fact that he was there in the first place suggests that he had at least some success in his home country, which is probably difficult to find information about unless you have access to Belgian publications from the 1920s. WP:NOLYMPICS exists, therefore, because consensus determined that if the individual was at the Games, there is a significant likelihood that sufficient sources for a biography exist that may just be difficult to access. My work is on pre-1952 Egyptian athletes, and information beyond their Olympic appearance is difficult to find in Arabic online, let alone in English. But I happen to have access to newspapers and sports journals from that era and there is plenty of coverage on all of them that would satisfy WP:N with ease. For a country like Belgium, which at the time had a better-developed press and sporting infrastructure, there must exist coverage of all of their Olympians that would easily satisfy WP:N, I just can't access it (or at least read it). WP:NOLYMPICS represents that consensus that these sources likely exist for all Olympians, even if we cannot find them, and so we can avoid discussions such as this and presume notability unless there is convincing evidence otherwise. Canadian Paul 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canadian Paul.--Darwinek (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no indepth sources. The assumption that every olympian ever is notable is wrongheaded and wrong and leads to a huge number of worthless articles like this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments made every time one of these comes up. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive, POINT-y nomination. Only delete !vote other than nom is a notorious ~~troll~~ deletionist. Speedy keep, close, and don't waste any more of our time that could be spent improving articles rather than piling on here. Smartyllama (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling someone a "notorious troll" is very, very insulting. I have made over 350,000 edits on Wikipedia, created well over 1000 articles, and sought to improve the encyclopedia in coutless ways. Under sourced participation at the olympics should not be used to force micro stubs. The abuse that people who stand up to the tyranny of the Wikipedia establishment get is unconscionable. This is why Wikipedia remains a presentist, overly covering males project that attracts mainly males as contributors, because the existing values are fought for to the point of anyone who tries to change them gets harrassed, insulted and oppressed. Calling someone a troll is unacepptable and wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking personal attack and replacing it with a more neutral term. The main point stands - this isn't going to be deleted and it's best not to waste any more time on this. Smartyllama (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments made here clearly mininterpret the actual notability guidelines for olympic competitots. Presumed notability does not overpower GNG in this case, only suggests we should search long and hard to show passing of GNG. Here searching was done long and hard, but not enough sourcing was produced but people are ignoring this reality to advocate for the article anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way that GNG and WP:N are written presumed notability DOES overpower GNG - it says one or the other. Perhaps this should be discussed elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ATH. The question of should the standards be so open should be discussed elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – We can't write a biography without in-depth (read: GNG) sources. Meeting an ATH SNG, alone, isn't a reason to keep. NOTDIR is the policy that governs here: we are not a directory of Olympic athletes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should not be trying to create articles without secondary sources to speak of; per WP:NOTDIR which trumps notability guidelines. SNGs that recommend the creation of such unsuitable articles should be revised. NB, calling a good faith editor "notorious troll" is completely unacceptable. b uidhe 04:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google search is woefully inadequate in assessing notability for someone like Bertheloot. Likewise, databases such as Newspapers.com are also insufficient because they do not include sources from the non-English speaking world. It seems prudent (perhaps essential) to check French and Belgian sources from the late 1920s and early 1930s to see what type of coverage Bertheloot actually received. Barring negative results from such a search, and in the case of a pre-Internet subject most likely to be covered in the non-English-speaking world, I do not think that there is a sound basis for rebutting the presumption of notability that flows from WP:NOLYMPICS. Cbl62 (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

States the guy who's written thousands of "useless substubs". Don't worry, I'll arrange for everyone to help clean up my mess after me, but hide it in the guise of a destubathon. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that was like ten years ago and he's since stopped making them. Others not so much. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing articles about locations with articles about people is apples and oranges. People are a special case. Species and lakes don't mind as much when their articles get vandalized. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead people such as the person in question generally don’t care either. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But their living relatives and friends might. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And someone might be upset if their hometown or favorite animal article is vandalized. I’d be very upset if someone vandalized the llama article with an anti-llama rant. That’s all irrelevant. We have tools to fight vandalism if need be. AfD is not one of them. Smartyllama (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think WP:ATH is met here. Not surprising there isn't a ton on the internet, but there probably is some more in print sources. We do have this image FWIW. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST, which says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. Dr. Blofeld's point that "we can't currently access them and are unlikely to for a Very long time if ever" isn't relevant; offline and hard-to-reach sources still exist, even if an individual editor can't access them. Likewise, WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the subject's notability. Personally, I agree that this article is not interesting and won't win any awards, but I disagree that it makes the website crap. The website is fine. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. – WP:NEXIST Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator acknowledges that the subject competed in the Olympics, so the subject meets WP:NOLY. What else? As it is the subject passes the SNG. Those who appear in the Olympics are notable. In addition to SNG - not that it is needed but WP:NEXIST as other editors have stated. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competing in the Olympics makes you notable based on common sense. Not sure why this keeps coming up since these articles always get kept don't they? The Notability guidelines all have a disclaimer saying "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." See that last part? And despite some desperately trying to ignore the subject specific guidelines, WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". So either common sense or the subject specific guideline for this sort of thing, proves the subject is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST, which says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. I agree with the reasoning of Toughpigs. the subject meets WP:NOLY. For sure, sources are out there, but they are antiquated and not on the internet. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, the minimum standard I expect is now there, I got it to 719 bytes of readable prose and 124 words. Please try to expand these stubs a bit so they actually half resemble encyclopedia articles, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY, and WP:NEXIST.KartikeyaS (talk) 16:01, 9 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. consensus is that the subject is notable (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. B. M. Basaiawmoit

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

Fails WP:NPOL as this politician lost once, and never won any major election. Only passing mentions / comments and news of contesting election are not WP:SIGCOV either. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, personality in public spotlight for decades. He was the runner-up for the Shillong parliamentary seat in 2014, obtaining 168,961 votes. He was the dominant candidate in ~~11 out of 25~~ several assembly constituencies in the state, (https://meghalayatimes.info/tsunami-modi-sweeps-nation-congress-demolished/). In addition to the references in the articles, there are as well as a number of descriptions of the person as "a prominent church leader and activist" (Khasi and Jaintia Hills, https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/north-east/meghalaya-hopes-for-mine-rescue/cid/1680286), "KJEPC convener P B M Basaiawmoit" (http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/23985/tribals-oppose-uranium-mining/), "P.B.M. Basaiawmoit, a Presbyterian Church member and former vice-president of the National Council of Churches in India" (https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2018/03/good-friday-holiday-reinstated-in-christian-majority-indian-state-after-protests/), etc, without mentioning the references in local languages. Notably, the article was featured on mainpage of Wikipedia in T:DYK. --Soman (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the number of votes polled in that constituency was 6,19,987 votes, it is not unusual that he still lost. Anyway the primary concern per WP:NPOL is the lack of electoral success and article covering the subject in significant detail (despite being in politics for decades). The sources linked above are passing mentions/ comments in article covering other topics, and not meeting WP:GNG of this person. Also T:DYK is not a notability criteria.DBig Xrayᗙ 15:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and the coverage does not indicate a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simple Google search produces repeated appearances in the Indian English-language press over 10+ years, seems to be a notable North-Eastern activist, Christian religious leader, was Vice-President of the Indian affiliate of the World Council of Churches. Meets GNG. Subject occupies multiple categories, rigid categorisation for deletion purposes via NPOL is inappropriate. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the article's DYK status. If one were to delete it, one should first go through the list of editors active on DYK and alert them first to this deletion notice. Until that is done, it is not really fair for AfD to infringe on DYK's turf by deleting the article. If you delete it, someone could claim that makes this corner of the website supreme. This has never been decided yet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he seems to be notable for other reasons than a failed politician, such as his religious positions and activism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, Please clarify how his religious positions and activism makes him notable. As I see the subject neither passes WP:NBISHOP nor meets the GNG for a notable activist. Epiphyllumlover the DYK was six years back, I have notified them but note DYK is not a notable criteria and there is no DYK turf. Goldsztajn It is expected that the AfD contributors will produce links on which they based their opinion. see WP:SOURCESEXIST. If there are convincing sources that are shown, I am willing to withdraw this. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 20:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray Any reasonable attempt at BEFORE requires a review process beyond the content of the article. From what I can see on the article history, your first action was to tag it for notability, Soman reverted the tag seven hours later and invited comment on the talk page via the edit summary and 9 minutes and 41 seconds after Soman's revert you tagged the article for AfD. The article was nominated for deletion before there was a response to Soman on the article's talk page; so AFAICS there was no attempt to engage with another editor who held a view different than yours on this subject. I have no doubt that your contributions in general are made in GF, but I do not see a reasonable attempt to search for available sources for the article (a core element of BEFORE, viz D1) or engage in the most collaborative way. I'm further minded to this view, because my earlier Google searching revealed that the subject of the biography is notable across a number of areas (minority rights, electoral politics, religious activism...literally the very first piece I found is The Telegraph referring to him as "a prominent church leader and activist"). He easily meets BASIC (FWIW BISHOP is an essay) and it hardly took more than 15 minutes of work to establish this. Once again for the record: AfD is not cleanup. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:51, 8 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. Tone 22:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desperados (role-playing game)

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

The one review in Space Gamer is substantial, but it seems to be the only significant attention this has received in reliable sources, as far as can be judged through an Internet search. 21 Google hits and nothing at Google Books indicates that this game hasn't received enough attention or made a lasting impact. Company has no article either, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV Chetsford (talk) 11:53, 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. Tone 22:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12Go Asia

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

WP:Advert article based on WP:Primary sources. Searched for WP:RS and could not find anything notable. Dorama285 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

updated and added some new sources Pescov (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Just a small start up with one minor award, coverage is either press releases, their rewrites, or in passing. Low Alexa rank. Please disclose your WP:COI status, Pescov. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 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 13:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daymak Inc.

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

Written like an advert and doesn't meet WP:GNG. What little there is out there about the company seems to be reviews of their products or press releases. Adamant1 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADVERT and fails WP:GNG. Dorama285 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Very spammy essay about a run of the mill company. Many companies now manufacture LEV attachments for consumer products, and few are notable. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 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. I see no indication that the sources presented meet WP:CORPDEPTH, per the detailed analysis of Vexations and HighKing. The arguments for keep simply do not overcome the lack of appropriate sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NIX (company)

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject Vexations (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's my fault that I failed to include all these sources and I am going to fix the article. However, right now I can provide a range of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject: 1) About Innovation Campus in Kharkiv ~~^[1]~~ ^[2] 2) Company in Global rankings ^[3]^[4] 3) HQ in St. Petersburg in USA ^[5]^[6]^[7] 4) Blockchain Expo 2019 ~~^[8]~~ 5) Regional Development in Florida ~~^[9]~~ ~~^[10]^[11]~~ 6) An Exceptional Pioneer in the Ukrainian IT Industry ^[12]^[13] 7) Law enforcement officers interrupted the work of one of the largest IT companies ^[14] 8) The best Ukrainian IT employers 2018 were announced ^[15] --Wellring (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://itukraine.org.ua/en/nix-solutions-will-participate-in-the-onstruction-of-innovation-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students.html
^ https://it-kharkiv.com/en/nix-solutions-participates-in-creating-innovations-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students/
^ https://ain.ua/en/2018/12/11/ukrainian-it-companies-in-software-500/
^ https://ain.ua/en/2020/02/19/20-companies-from-ukraine-among-global-outsourcing-100/
^ https://tradepostusa.com/ukrainian-software-provider/
^ https://stpetecatalyst.com/nix-united-sets-up-u-s-headquarters-in-st-pete/
^ https://stpeteedc.com/ukrainian-tech-provider-nix-united-opens-u-s-hq-in-st-petersburg-fl/
^ https://www.prlog.org/12797548-nix-at-the-blockchain-expo-2019.html
^ https://www.pr.com/press-release/796624
^ https://www.bossynews.com/news/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida/
^ https://www.tampabaynewswire.com/2019/10/15/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida-81128
^ https://www.insightssuccess.com/nix-solutions-ltd-exceptional-pioneer-ukrainian-industry/
^ https://www.slideshare.net/Insightssuccess/the-10-best-performing-software-testing-solution-providers-2018
^ https://thekharkivtimes.com/2015/09/21/law-enforcement-officers-do-not-let-personnel-one-of-the-largest-it-companies-to-work/
^ https://ain.ua/en/2018/12/17/best-ukrainian-it-employers-2018/

Wellring, you list https://www.pr.com/press-release/796624 and https://www.prlog.org/12797548-nix-at-the-blockchain-expo-2019.html. The first says it's a press release, the second says "by: NIX". How are those "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Vexations (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Vexations, I do not dispute, because I answered in a hurry. However, it seems to me that I have cited many other sources. -- Wellring (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Wellring, OK, can you strike those two please? Just wrap a <s></s> tag around them or use the {{Strikethrough}} template? Vexations (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Vexations, no problems, but I have also added two more sources about "Regional Development" Wellring (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Wellring, https://www.tampabaynewswire.com/2019/10/15/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida-81128 is also a press release. Vexations (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Wellring, https://itukraine.org.ua/en/nix-solutions-will-participate-in-the-onstruction-of-innovation-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students.html says: "Publication from:NIX Solutions". Is Bossynews a reliable source? Have a look at their head office I don't think so. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Vexations, you are right. I have striked them. --Wellring (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two more relevant sources. ^[1]^[2] --Wellring (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.kyivpost.com/business/kharkiv-taking-steps-to-become-business-and-tech-powerhouse.html
^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/valentinpivovarov/2019/01/22/legaltechbrexit/#7a1da14bbea8

Wellring, Valentin Pivovarov is a Former Contributor. Please see WP:FORBES. Vexations (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG. As all the sources seem to be trivial, primary, or attempts at establishing notability through association. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The initial nominator's claim was: "No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". We were having a good discussion with Vexations. I have provided the sources and while some of them were refuted, most of them were not. Now this is turning into groundless and excathedral attacks on the article. This is not the principle Wikipedists should use. Thus, what is your argument about? If you want to dispute about WP:GNG, we should start from the beginning. However, if we continue to discuss the initial cause of the nomination for deletion, then please study the sources provided more thoroughly. As for your general claim that sources seem to be too trivial and so on, it is unclear which criteria do you use to conclude this. Additionally, please read my answer (to HighKing) below before continuing the discussion. Wellring (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources contain Independent Content as per the definition in WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it's outrageous. You are just ignoring a range of sources. Please, clarify for us how come such sources as https://it-kharkiv.com/en (Kharkiv public union); https://ain.ua/en (one of the largest Ukrainian online magazine dedicated to IT business, startups and entrepreneurship); https://tradepostusa.com (U.S. news website); https://www.insightssuccess.com (World Business Magazine); https://stpeteedc.com (St. Petersburg Area Economic Development Corporation); https://thekharkivtimes.com (local news website); https://www.kyivpost.com (The oldest Ukrainian English-language weekly newspaper) contradict the WP:ORGIND and especially Independent Content claim. Your argument looks very superficial. It seems that you just want to grab these various sources of information and strike them by one shot without good reasoning. Most likely, you are not familiar enough with the sources or are quite biased. In general, the initial nominator's claim was: "No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I have provided the sources and while some of them were refuted, most of them were not. Thus, I hope for a sensible and thoughtful decision by the Wikipedia community. Wellring (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wellring I'm the nominator. I'm biased against what, exactly? Vexations (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wellring, well, lets see about me being not familiar enough with the sources tradepost USA is an aggregator (click on the read more link). The article was originally published by the Tampa Bay Business Journal (bizjournals.com/tampabay), an outlet of American City Business Journals. There is no original reporting in that article. The only statement it is used for is the claim that NIX has an office in St. Petersburg. When in doubt about a source, one clue that an article is based on a press release is the phrase "... said in a statement". Press releases don't establish notability. Independent reporting does. Vexations (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, please read my answers more carefully. I wrote: "We were having a good discussion with Vexations". My latest answers do not concern you. I think that the comments of other participants of the discussion are not well founded. Wellring (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a whole lot of WP:IDONTHEARYOU going on right there. Vexations has been kind enough to point out your misunderstanding on WP:ORGIND. You'd do well to take notice rather than doubling down and insisting that I respond to your post which only reinforces the perception that you are not familiar with WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wellring You are correct in that my original !vote only provided one reason whereas not every single reference fails WP:ORGIND - although most of them fail. So, for completeness, here is the full reasoning. I am unable to locate any references containing significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. It is a common misunderstanding of "references must be independent" to mean that the publisher and the topic company have no corporate links. Most miss the fact that the *content* must also meet certain criteria (most of the ones I've linked to). My analysis of the sources you mentioned are below.

This reference from it-kharkiv.com has no credited journalist or source (always a red flag) and is in the format of a press release. The exact same article was also published by Kyiv Post where the entire thing is credited to "Business Wire" (for issuing press releases) and says the article it "By Nix Systems". Therefore no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
There are three references from ain.ua. This one is a mere mention of the company name in a list, no detail whatsoever about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The next fails for the same reason. The third is a straight-forward comment on the position Nix appears ... in a list. Fails for the same reasons. Those references also fail since that is not considered significant coverage.
This tradepostusa reference is not the original publisher which is from Bizjournals. This reference is classic churnalism and is essentially PR. There is no Independent Content - most of the article relies entirely on information provided by the company see the original Press Release here and quotations from connected sources (fails WP:ORGIND). In this article in a totally different publication, the same quotation from J.P.Dubuque is also used - maybe they went to the same "announcement"? There are a lot of other references covering the same event in the same way and they all fail WP:ORGIND.
There are two references from insightsuccess. The first doesn't have any accredited source or journalist (a big red flag). The second appears to be a slideshare of the magazine itself containing the same article. Another example of churnalism. Check out the language for example: "the dream of forming the largest IT company in Ukraine", "against all odds", "unique direction", "grown and reinvented itself time and again", "unique approach and software engineering excellence", "prestigious position in the industry" - and that's just the lede. All of the articles on that site are churnalism. Not only does the article fail WP:ORGIND but I'd argue that the source fails WP:RS.
The STPE reference is PR and published by a connected source - the St. Petersburgh Economic Development Corporation - who also lend some quotes to the official press release - see link above. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This from The Kharkiv Times and provides no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It's essentially a couple of paragraphs that says that the police searched their offices with an explanation by the CEO. It is also not significant coverage and fails WP:SIGCOV.
This article from Kyiv Post (The oldest Ukrainian English-language weekly newspaper) relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives. There is nothing in this article that demonstrates original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, or fact checking that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (as per the definition of "Independent Content") and fails WP:ORGIND.

Wellring, I can acknowledge that it is very difficult for technology companies, even large ones, to be written about in a way which satisfies the criteria for establishing notability. Most articles are regurgitated company news and PR - but one of the easier ways is if the company has been covered by any independent analysts. I am unable to locate any reports on Nix but perhaps you might have more luck? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HighKing, for the answer. However, I still have some doubts regarding "insightsuccess" and KyivPost.

The slideshare link was included to prevent the argument "doesn't have any accredited source or journalist". It is an accredited source and the above-mentioned slideshare is a confirmation. Moreover, it is not a "material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)" (WP:ORGIND). I mean the article is wide enough for not to be considered as one that is based on a press release. Thus, is it just about style? Business magazine is not an encyclopedia and shouldn't follow the appropriate style. Churnalism is not about the style and the phrases you have provided. Consequently, it is not a churnalism. Therefore, I am not sure if it is a sufficient argument to reject this source.
As for KyivPost, you wrote: "relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives". The article includes some author's opinions, some widely available information, and some quotations that cover just a little part of the text. It is not enough to say that it "relies entirely on information and quotations provided by the company and their executives". Additionally, in WP:SIGCOV it is stated: "It does not need to be the main topic of the source material". This article does give a general description and overview of the company (it's about Vexations's claim below).--Wellring (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond briefly. The slideshare link is further confirmation that there is no accredited journalist but this, by itself, wouldn't put me off. To clarify, it's a red flag to be cautious and a little suspicious, not a red flag to reject the source entirely. But reading the article itself makes it clear that it was largely written by someone associated with the company. An article with genuine Independent Content (or a journalist using their own words) would not use phrases like "the company has taken a unique direction to meet the demands of clients offering specialized managed IT services". That's corporate speak. There's no explanation of any "unique direction" and nothing of any substance or depth in the article. The entire article is corporate speak. The headings use phrases such as "An All-Embracing Vision" and "A True Driver of Excellence". This article isn't even close to containing Independent Content and is most definitely churnalism because it is a corporate brochure dressed up as real journalism. As for KyivPost, can you point to any part of that article that you believe contains the author's opinions? Again, it is classic churnalism and a template of these types of articles - history (make sure of humble beginnings), define problem, describe growth, describe current success, sprinkle some forward looking statements and quotations from execs. The only thing missing for a complete set is a photo with smiling people. I understand you have a different opinion, that's fine, but in my opinion you're kidding yourself if you believe these article meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are numerous sources, some of them are reliable and deep enough. Some of them are additional and helpful to understand the topic of the article. Concerning in-depth information on the company, here is a link to reliable KyivPost newspaper source with not CEO's citation but only a reportage: Kyivpost.--KressInsel (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KressInsel, would you be so kind to point out which sources are reliabe and deep? Of course we occasionally use a minor source to verify a fact, but then, which sources do establish notability? Vexations (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I found this one: Kyivpost--KressInsel (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KressInsel, We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. You mentioned numerous sources, some of them are reliable and deep enough. The article you cite as the example of that dedicates barely 15% of its content (20 sentences) to NIX and that includes a quote from the senior vice-president for corporate clients. Sorry, but we need more than that. Vexations (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I already commented on that source above and pointed out that it does not contain Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have written some thoughts on that source above--Wellring (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerning the claims that some sources of the article don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Hm, it's not true that in 100% cases all the sources in Wikipedia articles should meet. At least the practice tells that. Take a look at any not-a-stub Wikipedia article and you will find numerous sources that fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. That because such sources support/cite some specific facts or numbers in a particular article. --KressInsel (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response That's a very common misunderstanding. References are mainly within an article including to support facts and assertions within an article. But that doesn't mean that those references meet the standard required to establish notability of the topic. You can have an article with numerous references that don't meet the requirements for establishing notability. What we are concerned with here are identifying those references that meet the criteria for supporting notability and those references must meet the criteria in GNG/NCORP and those references must meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV in addition to being WP:RS. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you find other articles you believe don't have references that establish notability of the topic, nominate them. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  In fact, that's why I nominated this article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cleveroad). It was cited as an notable example for another (similar) company, Cleaveroad. I don't think equivalence is a good argument, because it works both ways: If Cleaveroad should be kept because NIX is (supposedly) notable, then NIX should be deleted if Cleaveroad is not notable. Instead, look at what sources exist (beyond merely cited) and if the article is not supported by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then the subject is not notable, especially if it is not in some way unique, important, pioneering, or otherwise remarkable. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, why do you consider Cleveroad to be a similar company? NIX Solutions is a pioneer of Ukrainian IT founded in 1994. It was #7 in the list of the largest Ukrainian IT-companies for 2019 (https://ain.ua/en/2019/02/12/top-50-ukrainian-it-companies/) and #6 for January 2020. The company employs about two thousand employees. --Wellring (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wellring, try to come up with better sources and NIX can have an article. If those sources don't exist, no article; it's really as simple as that. Vexations (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puff piece with a lack of WP:RS. Dorama285 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are many mentions of the company, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (as shown by the source analysis above). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:32, 10 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 Withdrawn. Sandstein 15:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louis A. Craco

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

Tagged for notabilty since 2013. Does appear to be a CV on the subject. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have reorganized the article, added more reliable sources. Taking into account the list of refs at the moment - he is notable.Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Happy to withdraw this now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Easily passes my standards for notable lawyers, as notes editor of a bar review, winner of major bar awards, commissioner, and president of the BCNY. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 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 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BJP Mahila Morcha

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

All sources are routine coverages. Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable. Seems to have been created with the sole purpose to promote its office bearers.--DBig Xrayᗙ 05:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 20, please see there for potentially relevant information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concern is lack of sources that prove independent notability. This article above is entirely based on the org's Press release and doesn't even talk about the Org, quite far from passing WP:ORGCRIT. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 08:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not just posting a vote. Mahila Morcha will fail per WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of any BEFORE. BRANCH provides clear guidance on when separate articles are appropriate; moreover, BRANCH does not trump GNG/ORG. Simple, reasonable search reveals multiple RS.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Tanika Sarkar; Urvashi Butalia, eds. (1995). Women and Right-wing Movements: Indian Experiences. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-289-8.
^ HASAN, ZOYA (2010). "Gender, Religion and Democratic Politics in India". Third World Quarterly. 31 (6): 939–954. ISSN 0143-6597.
^ Kumari, Abhilasha; Kidwai, Sabina (1998). "Women activists of the BJP". Crossing the Sacred Line: Women's Search for Political Power. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 978-81-250-1434-8.
^ Menon, Kalyani Devaki (2011). Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-0279-3.
^ Berglund, Henrik (2 November 2009). "Including Women: Strategies of Mobilization Within the Hindu Nationalist Movement". India Review. 8 (4): 385–403. doi:10.1080/14736480903324982.

Keep Undoubtedly notable. The nominator should try other options before afd. Shyamsunder (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Goldsztajn which I couldn't have put better. The DRV should be read as suggested by the relisting admin. The was a question of whether this should be redirect/merge prior to a split out however I strongly reject that as in my opinion it would be difficult to do without undue weight in a high importance target article. The article has been developed slightly since that suggestion, it needs more but is really beyond my skill or resources to go farther myself. I remain reasonably convinced no evidence of alternatives to deletion were considered in this nomination by failure to pre-tag the article with notability issues for a reasonable period and failure to present evidence that options such as redirect had been considered. Additionally care should be taken with articles that are claimed to be of Mid/High Importance though I would have been reluctant to perhaps even go as far as Mid-importance myself. That said the state of the article was lamentably poor; it still remains currently below start. But AfD is not cleanup and the idea is we try to grow the encylopedia.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC) The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mahila Congress should also be noted for community consistency.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the women's wing of the world's largest political party certainly passes the WP:GNG criteria. Similar articles exist, for example, see Conservative Women's Organisation. --RaviC (talk) 19:02, 5 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 13:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calzavara

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

Seems to be a none notable company that makes covers for cell tower. I was not able to fail anything about them in a search. There are a few citations in the article that might establish notability, but they appear to either trivial product reviews or articles about them doing trade shows. Which isn't really notable on it's own or enough to base an article off of IMO. Also, the last citation seems to be dead. Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find coverage that meets WP:RS. Also, seven of the 14 edits over six years were performed by an (almost) single-purpose account. Dorama285 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. WP:MILL, and WP:NCORP. It makes covers for cell towers to make you think you're looking at a tree or something else other than a cell tower. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blinco Systems Inc.

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

The article has had templates on it for lack of notability and no reliable sources since 2010. Nothing seems to have been improved since then and nothing notable about the company comes up in Google News. Except for a few puff pieces. So it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Adamant1 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by WP:SPA Edblin, with links to press releases and inclusion in a case study of companies' adoption of various tools. Searches on this name and on "3rdwave", the name of their key product, are finding routine mentions, but not the level of specific coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Looks like a pay-for-play article. Dorama285 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:PUFF, and WP:TNT. It's full of puffery and buzzwords, includes multiple red links, and cites press releases from Business Wire. In 2020, everybody know we are a charity, not a free web-host or directory. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 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. Tone 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khayat (singer)

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

A singer with no importance shown. Speedy deletion tagging was contested by Þjarkur and per claims on the talk page, since the artist has participated in local pre-qualifers to the Eurovision without being selected though. No analytics in the reference section, no chart toppers, awards won and such. -- pr12402, February 28, 2020

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This deletion has been contested over at Russian and Ukrainian Wiki as well for a reason. Per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC. BabbaQ (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We are witnessing that the Russian folks (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:К_удалению/27_февраля_2020#Khayat) are tending to delete the page, cause the notability criteria for musicians ВП:МУЗЫКАНТЫ (à la WP:MUSICBIO over here) are not met, while there are only news and interviews at hand as references. The Ukrainian folks (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вікіпедія:Статті-кандидати_на_вилучення/26_лютого_2020#Khayat) are tending to keep it, cause they want to promote all what is Ukrainian) and there are 3+1 intertwikies (3 of them are in the deletion process RU, UK, EN, though ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯). -- pr12402, February 28, 2020

Keep. The life and his activities were repeatedly covered in national informational and entertaining periodicals: magazine [26] , tabloids [27], [28], on TV on national channels and Radio [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]; other TV channels, radio and newspapers: [36], [37],[38], [39]. In addition, the person is a laureate of the Ukrainian music award [40]. Also in charts [41], [42]. --Flavius1 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want note that the article was nominated for deletion simultaneously on English Wikipedia (26.02.2020 16:28) and Ukrainian Wikipedia (26.02.2020 16:35) by a Russian participant who was blocked there indefinitely. This happened due to the fact that an article was created on the Russian Wikipedia and it was immediately nominated for a speedy deletion. In Ukrainian Wikipedia, the article was created over a year ago. --Flavius1 (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 1, 4, 8, 14 – interviews (not tertiary coverage)
- 2, 3 are tabloids, as Flavius1 noted (we can’t rely upon the yellow press)
- 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 – YouTube videos (~ social network-esque sources)
- 9 – interview beefed up by a short announcement of performance
- 11 – short news
- 15 – short news from the Instagram post of artists. There are such awards (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Українська_пісня_року), but they lack regularity, have only an UK Wiki page created only just 19 February, 2020, and not verified by a patroller over there yet, though.
- 16, 17 – the #10 and #14 places in some charts of two city radio stations neither the nationwide ones, nor the FDR Charts mentioned over at List of record charts for Ukraine. -- pr12402, February 28, 2020

Comment:. Once again and more precisely. I think that person notable by criteria WP:SINGER (singers may be notable if meet at least one of the following criteria):

1. Has been nominated for a major music award in Ukraine - Yearly Ukrainian National Awards (YUNA) [43]

2. Has won for a music award «Ukrainian song of the year» for song "Osoka" [44] (the music award was renewed after a three-year break. In the 2000s, the award was called Our Song)

3. Has won second place in a major music competition in Ukraine - Vidbir 2020 (Vidbir is a Ukrainian musical competition organized by STB and UA:PBC. The contest defines the representative of Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest....it's like Melodifestivalen in Sweden or UMK in Finland).

4. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network (see links above national radio and national TV).

5. Has had a album on music chart (position on iTunes Chart #28 (February 02 2020); position on Apple Music Chart #6 (February 23 2020) [45]).

6. Has been the subject of multiple published works, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, online versions of print media, radio and television (see links above). P.S. Links to YouTube are excerpts from television broadcasts of television channels Flavius1 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG as well as claims to pass multiple criteria of WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:54, 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. Merge can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Flush Gang

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

A fictional organization that seems to fail WP:NFICTION/GNG. I can't find anything that goes beyond WP:PLOT summary / list of appearances in media. They did recently appear on TV (Arrow) but I don't see anything about the group, some semi-related discussion about casting and such is not directly related to the notability of this entity. The best source I see is [46] and it is really a fancruft/trivia level. Few mentions in books are basically short plot summaries as well. Can anyone find anything better to rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge By just reading the article you can find a suitable merge-option. Another WP:POINT-nomination after a shot down PROD. The Banner talk 09:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The Royal Flush Gang has appeared in DC comics for 35 years, and in six television shows (four animated, two live-action), so they've received coverage from reliable sources. The following sources are currently used in the article:
- The Essential Wonder Woman Encyclopedia by Phil Jimenez and John Wells, Random House (2010)
- DC Comics Year By Year: A Visual Chronicle by Alan Cowsill, Alex Irvine, Matthew K. Manning, Michael McAvennie and Daniel Wallace, Dorling Kindersley (2010)
- The World Encyclopedia of Comics, Vol. 1 ed by Maurice Horn, Chelsea House Publishers (1976)
- "Tomorrow's Knight" by Pat Jankiewicz, Starlog Magazine #259 (1999)
- "Last Laughs" by Pat Jankiewicz, Starlog Magazine #282 (2001)
- "Arrow to Face DC Card Crooks 'The Royal Flush Gang'" by Kevin Fitzpatrick, ScreenCrush (2012)
- "DC's Royal Flush Gang Resemble Version on Arrow TV Show" by Rich Johnston, Bleeding Cool (2020)
- DC Comics Encyclopedia All-New Edition by Matthew K. Manning and Alex Irvine, Dorling-Kindersley (2016)
- "10 Things Every DC Fan Should Know About the Royal Flush Gang" by Dylan Musselman, CBR.com (2019)
- "All In: A History of the Royal Flush Gang" by Kyle Dodson, DCUniverse.com (2020)

This shows per WP:NEXIST that reliable non-fiction sources exist, which demonstrates notability. Many of them discuss plot-related information, but it's necessary when writing about fictional characters to describe their plot function in the context of the narrative as a whole. The article could use more work to cut down the overly-long plot summaries, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not affect the subject's notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - The issue is that no-one has demonstrated that they go an inch beyond plot discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per available sources, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 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 keep. Tone 23:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power Sword

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

A minute fictional prop. There is no evidence this object received any scholarly or otherwise in-depth analysis that goes beyond WP:PLOT summaries and lists mentioning media this appeared in. Therefore this fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. SOFTDELETE is problematic as this relatively generic term is used in other franchises as well (ex. WH40K). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Power Sword isn't just a minute prop; it's crucial to the character's portrayal. I've added information to the article about the different creative decisions made by Mattel, the cartoon producers and the film producers about how the Power Sword was used in the different adaptations; this is real-world info from How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the Big Screen by Brian C. Baer, McFarland (2017). There is also real-world coverage of the Power Sword's design and use in:
- Mastering the Universe: He-Man and the Rise and Fall of a Billion-Dollar Idea by Roger Sweet and David Wecker, Emmis Books (2005)
- The Art of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Dark Horse Books (2015)
- He-Man and the Masters of the Universe: A Character Guide and World Compendium, Dark Horse Books (2017)

This is independent coverage in reliable sources, and demonstrates notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: I am happy to AGF your claim, but at the same time I will ask you for quotations to help us confirm it (and hopefully we can use that content to expand the article). I notice you did not provide page ranges for your suggestions. Sadly, Mastering the Universe: He-Man and the Rise and Fall of a Billion-Dollar Idea is no preview to me on Google Books, nor can I locate it on LibGen (I'd appreciate information on how you got your copy, and no, I am in no position to go to a library as I don't live near any place that holds this work). Also, Clerisy Press is a very minor publisher, and I do wonder if they are reliable. Moving on, The Art of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe - I was able to access this book through GB preview, but all mentions I see (pages 224, 11, 209 and 71) are strictly in-passing and plot summaries. Page 67 is restricted, but snippet view also appears in passing. I'd appreciate if you would tell us what I missed here, and where in this book is there an in-depth coverage of this topic. Also, it is published by Dark Horse Comics, so it could be considered PRIMARY or at least not independent of the subject. Which is also the case for your position #3, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe: A Character Guide and World Compendium, from the same publisher. I have reviewed pages 442-443, and 458-461, as well as 208, and again I don't see anything outside in passing mentions of some plot summary. Please, do tell us which parts of this book cover the topic in depth. (And why do you think that a book published by the very same publisher of a comic in question can be considered an independent source in the meaning of GNG).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I've added quite a bit to the article today, including all of the books that I mentioned, with page numbers (except for the Character Guide, which I own on Kindle and don't have the hard copy page numbers). Your sarcastic assumption of good faith is noted; please remember to be civil. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another WP:POINT-nomination after a shot down PROD. The Banner talk 09:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to He-Man. It's a part of the character. It literally needs all of three sentences of description. TTN (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @TTN: Redirects are usually good (WP:CHEAP and so on) but as I noted in the op, in this case is this really the primary context? For me, I associate power swords in fiction with WH40K, not He-man... ([47]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are there enough uses where a disambiguation page would be a good idea? Searching, it seems like He-Man is definitely the primary used version on Wikipedia. It seems there are a few other mentions of capitalized "Power Sword," but it's hard to say if those are really enough to justify a disamgib page. TTN (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Capitalized - good point. I guess WH40k item is power sword which does not even exist (and probably should not be created anyway). So, fair, redirect can be an option (from Power Sword). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements and the WP:Point approach that these fiction deletions from Piotrus appear to be taking -- its feels like the fiction space in the last few months have been under assault -- and its catching a lot of good stuff in the process, Sadads (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I worked on the page today, and added lots of sources. In addition to specific passages from the four books that I listed above, I also added:
- He-Man and the Masters of the Universe: The Newspaper Comic Strips by James Shull and Chris Weber, Dark Horse Books (2017)
- The Washington Post, the Nashville Tennessean, the Baltimore Sun, the Hartford Courant and United Press International, all talking about the Power Sword as a sought-after Christmas gift in various newspaper articles from 1987 to 2003.

I believe that this is enough to establish GNG notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am afraid this time I am not convinced by improvements to change my vote. You've referenced the WP:PLOT and added information that it was made into some toys, neither of which seems relevant. Plot is unsufficient, referenced or not, to demonstrate notability, while being made into toys is common enough to not be relevant. Not every product is notable. We would need in-depth coverage of a toy's impact or reception, not mention in passing that it exists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. It looks good. Unclear why it was prodded then AfDd. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 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. Tone 23:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batarang

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

While this article has been recently expanded with a few more sources, they don't help with the main issue, which is that this is essentially a WP:PLOT summary with a 'list of appearances in media' thrown in (therefore this fails WP:NFICTION/GNG). Batarang has never been analyzed beyond that. Batman is a popular enough franchise that there are several 'Batman encyclopedias' and some do include entries on Batarang, but the problem is that they do not go an inch beyond plot summaries (ex. The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes: Batman: "Over the years, Batman and Robin have devised an arsenal of emergency batarangs, each one suited to some special purpose. These include the magnet or magnetic batarang, for disarming criminals and other uses; the seeing-eye batarang ..." Pure plot summary, no deeper analysis. In the end, there is little to say about this item - witness this great 'reference' used in the article: [48]. At best, this can be SOFTDELETED and merged/redirected to Batman or such (since it is a plausible search term related to Batman franchise), but there is no reason we need a separate article about 'types of Batarangs and media they appeared in', which is all that is written here, and I see no source that goes beyond this. (Ok, this is cute, but the fact that batarang is used as an example of" how the reader interprets the action in a comic panel" does not make it notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED). In the end, this is as notable of a topic as an article about types of Superman capes or such. WP:FANCRUFT, that is to say. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wp:Imperfect. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many sources already in the article:
- The DC Comics Encyclopedia by Alastair Dougall, Dorling Kindersley (2008)
- The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes, vol 1: Batman by Michael L. Fleisher, Macmillan (1976)
- The Essential Batman Encyclopedia by Robert Greenberger, Del Rey (2008)
- The batarang prop that is in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, as a notable artifact of American film history
- "Image Schemas and Conceptual Metaphor in Action Comics", Elizabeth Potsch and Robert F. Williams, in Linguistics and the Study of Comics (Palgrave McMillan, 2012) which is mentioned above, and which demonstrates that the batarang is such a well-known fictional device that it can be used in a linguistics book.

-- Toughpigs (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not every museum exhibit deserves an article. Nothing here goes beyond plot summary or a passing, trivial mention. Please show a single source that discusses this prop in an in-depth way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Batarang was added to the Smithsonian collection, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's one of the few comic book gadgets that is independently notable. There is a decent amount about it in the non-primary sources found by Toughpigs._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Batman's utility belt seems like it would be the best core article, and that article can likely be expanded into something worthwhile. Regardless of what sources even say, it's just a bat-shaped boomerang shuriken. There's only so much you can say about it. Absolutely all discussion about the topic can fit in a couple paragraphs. This is basically just a permastub once you remove all this needless fluff that fails WP:NOTPLOT. There is no particular need to list every single minor usage in media. TTN (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever vote keep? Your stance on one side is getting irritating. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: Please WP:NPA. TTN makes a good point. Please address it instead. You invoke IMPERFECT above. But we need to show - suggest - how can we fix this article. The problem is that sources shown do not allow for any discussion of the topic outside PLOT and list of media appearances. I'd be happy to see this saved, but we need to show how this meets notability for stand-alone articles by showing that this topic received some significant coverage that goes beyond pure plot summary. Have you found any? I did review the sources presented here as best as I could and I don't see anything beyond PLOT summary. Even the Smithsonian entry doesn't say anything about that prop beyond stating it's name and plot-related function (bat shaped shuriken). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address on how that is a personal attack? If you can't then WP:AGF. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 09:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph: an actual serious question. Second paragraph. Just honesty. I am a neutral person. If I vote notable then keep and if not then most likely merge. I don't feel that notability has to be proven all the time to fit the agenda that imperfect articles got to go. Yes....some articles are just plot and even (Heaven forbid) and not even sourced. But that don't mean nothing. Using one example: If Scooby-Doo (character) is in poor shape and had little to no citations. Does that it mean not notable and should be merged in Scooby Doo. No! Common sense dictates that it is well heard of and just need to be improved on. Not be freaking obliverated and AFD'd all the time. I personally don't even have to be a fan of Batman to have heard of the Batarang. It's practically an iconic fictional weapon. Also saying "it's just a" [insert description here] is an fallacy. It's like saying Princess Leia's bikini is just a bikini. Oh ok. Let's merge it to Princess Leia then. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 09:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also yes I am well aware of the essay WP:Otherstuffexists (essay not guideline). Just throwing relevant examples out there. Sometimes even guidelines are just "guidelines" anyway. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 09:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources / interesting digs here: Here and Here Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 10:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/trending/shining-a-light-saber-on-of-the-best-weapons-in/article_d296e37f-1174-5d0f-b3ed-a87a14e5ea96.html#13
https://www.cbr.com/best-worst-batman-gadgets/
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/01/10/zack-snyders-batman-batarangs-now-official-dc-canon
https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/2019/9/21/20877046/fortnite-batman-crossover-event-dates-items-cosmetics-loot-ps4-xbox-one-pc-nintendo-switch
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/02/488388258/tsa-reminds-passengers-no-batarang-superhero-weapons-on-flights
https://www.geekalerts.com/pewter-batarang-letter-opener/
https://www.thegamer.com/shazam-hidden-details-true-fans-caught/
https://www.cbr.com/batmans-secret-stash-the-top-20-weapons-in-the-batcave-ranked/
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/technology/346271/real-life-batarang-proves-the-science-behind-batman-works/story/
https://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-travelers-you-cant-bring-your-batleth-or-batarang-on-the-flight/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3376181/TSA-officers-seize-handguns-batarangs-inert-grenades-2015.html
https://www.mandatory.com/culture/1446609-ranked-most-flawed-iconic-fictional-weapons#1
https://www.gq.com/story/batman-v-superman-dope-gadgets
https://www.geek.com/comics/batmans-very-specific-gadgets-1711674/
https://www.cbr.com/dc-batman-rarest-comics-worth/
https://www.tvovermind.com/20-powerful-weapons-dc-universe/
https://kotaku.com/getting-my-batarang-on-with-lego-batman-the-videogame-5027279

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would and hopefully will add these sources in article. It's just that I am busy with job and / or a different article. There is no deadline. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 11:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Better source and more notability than way over half our articles. People who don't like comics are better advised to ponder the Wikipedian's Prayer before trying to destroy good articles -- articles that are longer, better, have better sources, and are about subjects that pass the WP:GNG better than even the average article. See also User:Herostratus/7 Virtues. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman's utility belt, which contains sufficient information on the subject. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient information for you. How do you know what is sufficient information for the reader? You don't. In fact, some percentage of readers who have taken the trouble to search on the term batarang will welcome all or some the information in this article. Those who don't are not required to read beyond the lede. For those who do, why do you wish to deny them this benefit by destroying the existing work of other editors? The article you wish to direct the reader to has maybe 1/20 the information as the existing article. We're supposed to be here to provide rather than remove information. Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As editors here, our duty is to determine what information belongs in an article and present it in a clear manner. My proposed target will inform a reader 1) what a Batarang is 2) who made it and when 3) what it's used for 4) detail on some of the variations and 5) its replacement with the grappling gun. The mass collection of specific uses and colors in other media borders on WP:TEMPLEOFFACTS territory. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. Did you evaluate the links I posted? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into specifics on each one, I didn't find anything in the links that could be used to improve the article in a meaningful way. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Argento Surfer. I mean, there's nothing much to say about the batarang other than it's a boomerang shaped like a bat that Batman uses. It's hardly notable on its own. JOE BRO 64 17:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lightsaber is just a space sword. A blaster is just a space gun. Princess Leia’s metal bikini is just a bikini, Batman’s utility belt is just a belt. The One Ring is just a ring and same with the Power ring. Superman logo is just a logo. The Batmobile is just a car. This is exactly what this logic sounds like. Also we are not supposed to say per whoever. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Jhenderson777, but we're not talking about that here. (Also, every example you listed has some sort of lasting cultural significance, unlike the batarang.) JOE BRO 64 00:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol let’s not be redundant and predictable. look at the sources and the comments that I already brought up. I already pointed out the essay in case someone used it and used sources to help prove significance. Also that essay is for voting not using examples of redundant fallacies. Batarang is iconic too and a signature weapons of Batman. There is at least twenty sources on it if you were paying attention. Prove me wrong? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the sources, if you want to clean up the article, then clear out the cruft. Sadads (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: if you clear out the cruft, you're left with the content at Batman's utility belt. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. Also I think you are just glancing at the sources. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Batarang is only loosely connected to the Utility Belt and is a more familiar item than the Utility Belt. Outside of carrying Kryptonite I am not sure it would be a notable example either. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the most recognizable weapons in comics and popular culture, the Batarang is Batman’s signature weapon of choice, and honors his dedication to fight crime by non-lethal means." Source = https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/technology/346271/real-life-batarang-proves-the-science-behind-batman-works/story/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”the batarang is Batman's most prevalent tool" Headeline says it all too. Source = https://www.dailyprogress.com/news/trending/shining-a-light-saber-on-of-the-best-weapons-in/article_d296e37f-1174-5d0f-b3ed-a87a14e5ea96.html#13

” What do you get when you combine a boomerang with a bat? You get the batarang, one of the most useful and versatile weapons in Batman's arsenal.” Source = https://www.cbr.com/best-worst-batman-gadgets/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

” For most of us, Batman's cool toys are pretty much out of reach. We'll never drive a Batmobile. We won't slip on a Batsuit or fire a Bat grappling gun. The iconic "Batarang," Batman's bat-shaped cross between a throwing star and a boomerang, however, may be a little bit more in reach.” Source = https://www.cnet.com/news/armorer-makes-batman-batarangs-sharp-as-an-ax/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“ A man was arrested in Seattle on Monday, after throwing one of Batman’s iconic bat-shaped weapons at a cop car.” Source = https://time.com/4427361/batman-batarang-police-car/?xid=tcoshare Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the most famous and useful weapons in the DC Universe is the Batarang" Source = https://www.tvovermind.com/20-powerful-weapons-dc-universe/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are in-depth. Combine them and all you get is a two-sentence article. Nothing that cannot fit in the Batman utility belt article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. I was quoting every time it was referred to as "iconic", famous etc. That's not all the info. That is not even every source out there. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also let me get this straight? You want an article of an subject that is referred to as iconic and famous because it's mostly plot and cruft to be redirected to another article that's mostly plot and cruft. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable whether lack of in-depth coverage, but with sources calling something iconic and famous, makes it notable or not. Which is why we are having this debate. If the community's consensus will be that is sufficient, good. If not, also good. The point is we need to occasionally discuss such things. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't. AfD is fine, and useful. Most of the articles submitted to AfD are bad articles. They don't meet the WP:GNG and can't, or a relevant WP:SNG either; the WP:COI spam; they're memorials to worthy but unnotable persons; they're so badly made that they're not an asset to the project and need to be started over; they're irretrievably WP:NPOV or WP:BLP violations ; many other good reasons. Most of them I vote to delete, and most of them do get deleted.

That has nothing to do with this case. The deal here is that there are some editors who don't like comic books and things related to them. I know this, you know this (or should), and everybody knows this, so why tiptoe around the matter? Whether this is bourgeois snobbery or whatever, who knows; I can't see inside people's minds. What matters is that you are wasting our time with efforts to destroy good articles that easily meet the WP:GNG, and the good work of either editors. But I mean, not to be rude, but who cares if you personally don't like to read articles like this? Stop it, please. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you my opinion in this case was not informed by a dislike of comic books. I reviewed the current article both during and before this AfD. I have reviewed the sources provided during this AfD. The quality of them leads me to believe the URLs were copied from a Google news search without inspection. The Daily Mail, NPR, and CNET sources are all the same story: a batarang replica was among some items confiscated by the TSA. That's not something worth including in the article. Most of the listicles describe it as iconic. That's one sentence, and not enough to build an article on. There's a lot of flash here, but no substance. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified by Jhenderson777 and Toughpigs more than establish notability. — Hunter Kahn 16:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are enough to establish notability. I'm also against redirecting because the utility belt actually seems less notable than the Batarang to the average reader. As often happens in these fictional deletion discussions, multiple sources are provided, and the response is "they're not in depth enough". In my opinion, multiple sources mentioning the Batarang do establish notability. But others disagree, so all we can do is keeping having these AFDs to try to form a consensus as best we can. Rhino131 (talk) 14:03, 6 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. Closing per the withdrawal by the nominator, the improvements, and what appears to be a easily obtained consensus process at this point Sadads (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breathless Mahoney

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

I am not seeing any source that discusses this character for more then a single sentence. Mentions are in passing and generally WP:PLOT summaries. Seems to fail GNG/NFICTION. Bottom line, this fictional character has not been subject to any in-depth analysis I have been able to find (nor anyone else, so far). While I appreciate new sources added after my prod by User:Toughpigs (who also removed the prod), I am afraid they do not change my prod rationale. Neither appears to be more than a passing remark about the topic. At best this can be SOFTDELETED by redirecting it to Dick Tracy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blank & Redirect to Dick Tracy. No reliable in-depth sources found to assert notability . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

Quotes from reliable sources

From Dick Tracy's Cityscape, Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers (1993): "Breathless Mahoney is transformed in the movie. Originally presented, in 1946, as a psychopathic thief who stabbed a man in the back with a pair of pruning shears, Breathless in the 1980s is an intelligent criminal as well as beautiful night club singer. Vamp and femme fatale, in some respects she plays a timeless role. In this morality play it is inevitable that she will pay for her selfishness and passion with her life. Where Tracy represents day, she represents night. While Tracy fights to protect the city from evil, Breathless is only concerned with her own future and, like Big Boy Caprice, with her desire to "own" the city. As No Face, she matches Tracy in intelligence. Breathless, in the film, provides a complex, more 1980s, opposition of good and evil, moral and amoral."^[1]

From "So Much More: The Music of Dick Tracy", American Music (2004): "When we do see and hear "More" again [sung by Breathless Mahoney], it is before an audience at the Club Ritz and is much more polished than in our first encounter with the piece. The ragged rehearsal gives way to a stellar performance. And in this performance we begin to understand the subversive meaning of the song. What at first seemed like harmless flirtation of a woman who never got enough is now enacted before us as Big Boy's downfall at the hands of Breathless. She intends to run his racket and has set a trap for him. As Big Boy's stooges attempt to shoot it out with the cops outside, as tommy guns rage, as patrons and chorines rush for écover, Breathless, undaunted, standing erect and triumphant, sings on. Flirtation gives way to victorious rapacity, and the genre of the musical itself is turned inside out in the song's successful performance. There is no sweat or tears to applaud. We celebrate more, more, and still more murderous mayhem as the song continues."^[2]

"Drop-Dead Looks", The Sydney Morning Herald (1990): "[Grace Bros] is using the film to describe fashion... "singing canary yellow, rock'em sock'em red, payola green, Breathless Mahoney blue and good-guy-bad-guy black and white." Madonna, as Breathless, is seen in a variety of cling-film black satin, lace, sequined or silver lamé dresses in the film. There has already been a rush on look-alike clothes and wigs in Sydney... "The 18-to-21-year-old end of the market insist on it for their new Breathless Mahoney look," says the shop's owner, Lynette Kirsten."^[3]

"Dick Tracy inspires some arresting looks", The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal (1990): "The movie isn't scheduled for release until June, but several firms already have entered the movie-marketing madness with garments patterned after the film's primary personalities, the seductive Breathless Mahoney and the block-jawed detective himself. A Los Angeles firm even has signed up to create drop-dead Breathless Mahoney dresses fit for a movie goddess. L.A. Glo has created a dress collection inspired by the movie torch singer, played by Madonna. The dresses, which cost from $70 to $180, are already in local department and specialty stores."^[4]

"Fashion detectives can track down 1940s duds", Oceanside North County Times (1990): "To achieve the seductive Breathless Mahoney look, you can buy dresses inspired by the torch singer played by Madonna. The after-5 dresses from a California firm, L.A. Glo, are done in stretch satins, crepe, chiffon and lamé and retail between $70 and %180. "In the collection, I tried to incorporate '40s details such as halter neck, spaghetti straps dripping in rhinestones, feather sleeves, plunging necklines and deep side-slit skirts," California designer Irene Zibecchi said from her office. "These are the details a woman wants in a dress to look like a glamorous superstar on the dance floor."... Breathless Mahoney's look can also be found in vintage clothing stores. Many '30s and early-'40s evening dresses boast halter and sweetheart necklines and slim or bias-cut skirts."^[5]

"Not Left Breathless: Tracy's Fashion Statement Makes Barely a Whisper: "A handful of St. Louis prom queens got there first. They bought the Breathless Mahoney dresses long before Madonna's character began slinking her way across the new Dick Tracy movie screen. Breathless-labeled gowns were shipped to stores around the country, including Berrybridge in St. Louis, as early as March, months before release of what movie moguls hoped would be the biggest blockbuster of the summer. Even more of the Breathless styles are to be delivered next month."^[6]

References

^ Lukinbeal, Christopher L.; Kennedy, Christina B. (1993). "Dick Tracy's Cityscape". Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers. 55: 76–96. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
^ Swayne, Steve (Spring 2004). "So Much "More": The Music of "Dick Tracy" (1990)". American Music. 22 (1): 60. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
^ Owens, Susan (July 3, 1990). "Drop-Dead Looks". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
^ Herman, Valli (May 15, 1990). "Dick Tracy inspires some arresting looks". The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
^ Johnson, Marilyn (May 30, 1990). "Fashion detectives can track down 1940s duds". Oceanside North County Times. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
^ Homan, Becky (July 12, 1990). "Not Left Breathless: Tracy's Fashion Statement Makes Barely a Whisper". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

-- Toughpigs (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside whether Lancaster Intelligencer Journal is reliable enough or too niche (local), it is a helpful find (good job), through I think only one source can be said to be about the character. Is this enough for in-depth? At two-three sentences? Borderline, but again, helpful. One more find like this and this can start meeting GNG requirement for multiple in-depth sources. And no, sorry, second source you cite doesn't even mention the character by name, and the others are really in-passing. The movie got reviewed, the reviews mention the character occasionally, but in the end, an in-depth source is ideally a source about the character, or one that dedicates at least a good-sized paragraph to their analysis (that goes beyond a plot summary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted six paragraphs from six different sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but as I said above, I think only the first one may meet GNG in-depth coverage requirements, and that's being charitable and saying that in-depth can be defined as four sentences or so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the second one again. It is about the song "More", as sung by Breathless Mahoney in the movie. It says "Breathless". She is the singer that that paragraph is discussing. The others are about the temporary fashion craze that Breathless Mahoney inspired across America and Australia in 1990. None of them are movie reviews, and none of them are plot summary. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's about the song. It mentions the singer (BM) in passing. What's your point, except to prove it is a very bad source (WP:NOTINHERITED, again)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more from the same article:

Is the song speaking of Tracy nabbing Big Boy? Or is it of Breathless nabbing Tracy, as the camera pans over to the Club Ritz, where Breathless is entertaining the club owner and her boyfriend, Lips Manlis? In fact, it is both, as its reprise midway through the film demonstrates. There the song begins in the Club Ritz, with Breathless entertaining mobster Big Boy and his crowd, whereupon the police conduct a mock raid in order to plant a bug in Big Boy's war room. Breathless keeps singing, and the song continues, removed from its club context, as an accompaniment to a montage of images showing Tracy cracking down on the criminals... Yet one of the final montage images is Tracy, phallic tommy gun in hand, shadowed by a still larger image of Breathless uttering the song's final lines: "This time I'm not only getting, I'm holding my man." The longest head shot of Breathless comes when, focusing directly on Tracy, she sings, "And no one I've kissed, babe, ever fights me again." Both are relentless in their quest for domination, but since good triumphs over evil in the comic-book world -- and since sex is evil -- we know in advance that Breathless's pursuit will come to naught."

-- Toughpigs (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'd totally vote keep if the AfD concerned I'm Breathless. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blank & Redirect Totally agree that the coverage is trivial. Except for maybe the one source above, but that's not enough. Although, redirecting to the Dick Tracy article seems fine. Also, as a side, I'm pretty lukewarm on the long quotes. It's not like people can't just visit the sources and read the quotes themselves. The AfD page is already long enough as it is. Not that I haven't made it longer with my long winded posts once or twice, but that's a different thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dick Tracy, a merge-target that could have been found by just reading teh article. WP:POINT-nomination after a shot down PROD. The Banner talk 09:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Toughpigs. Additionally, this book discusses both the comic strip and film character in depth, and this book dedicates several pages about sexism and gender roles in relation to her film character. This book includes some discussion of her as well, and it appeara there are other examples on Google Books too... — Hunter Kahn 11:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those sources appear in depth, few sentences here and there, I don't think there is a single paragraph about her in any of them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Half a dozen trivial mentions do not establish notability. Maybe draft it if anyone is interested in scouring really old print sources for possible significant coverage. TTN (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Toughpigs. A merge discussion could later be held. When there is no case possible for deletion, an AfD should not be started. Here, in addition, the article was also prodded. That is a serious breach of policy. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When the article was prodded, (old version), there was nothing to merge (all content was already present in any related target articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally irrelevant! Per WP:PRD "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." Here not just some object but EVERYONE objects to your AfD. What part of "must" is unclear? Prods are for writers who self-publish a book and now create an article on themselves and one for the book. These kind of things. You use PROD as peanuts. gidonb (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dick Tracy characters where she is already covered. The sourcing, as mentioned, is pretty sparse and probably not enough to sustain an independent article. The entry in the Character List is also pretty much the entirety of the information that is in her own article, so I don't really see much that needs to be merged, but the history will still be intact if anyone sees anything that should be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I still think some of the added sources are somewhat questionable as far as how much significance they give to this specific character, but the article has certainly been expanded enough where a simple Redirect as I initially proposed would no longer be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage from reliable sources. In addition to what has been highlighted above, Dick Tracy and American Culture: Morality and Mythology, Text and Context has numerous sentences about Breathless, including a very solid paragraph on page 279. The Encyclopedia of Sexism in American Films discusses her, especially in contrast to Tess Trueheart. Madonna as Postmodern Myth: How One Star's Self-Construction Rewrites Sex, Gender, Hollywood and the American Dream has quite a bit about Madonna's portrayal (in terms of how the character comes across, not just acting). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I felt some of the sources that have been cited in this AFD discuss the character in greater depth than some of the votes indicate. So to try to illustrate this, I expanded the article slightly, particularly trying to show that there is more to say about this character than simply plot summary, but there is also some historical context and thematic analysis to be had here. Please note this is NOT meant to be the full extent to which this article can be improved, but only a bit of expansion from the handful of sources found so far. I am confident there are other sources that could be found with further searching, but I don't have time to go full WP:HEY and expand this one anymore right now because I have other wiki-priorities I need to focus on. Still though, I think the expansion that has occurred so far more than shows the article meets notability requirements and should be kept. (Note: Toughpigs, my edits may have conflicted a bit with your own, so if so, I apologize, and feel free to add back anything.) — Hunter Kahn 23:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. User:Hunter Kahn and User:Toughpigs have squeezed more of those sources than I thought would be possible. I could nitpick some stuff, but... I don't think it would be productive. If the article was in its current shape I would neither nominate it for deletion nor endorse it. Good job. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Performance operational analysis

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

Another buzzword soup article about a vaguely defined and poorly explained topic that is not backed up by the single source in it. After the first five words, the entire content is original research and something of a how-to guide.

I could find no other sources that mention this topic. All I found was a strange-looking eBook with the same title but whose blurb and free snippet makes me suspect it's about marketing, rather than engineering, balderdash. Reyk _YO! 04:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it is buzzword soup, rather the content is a poor summary of the single source; the mentioned laws and performance ratios are verifiable in the (rather well-known) paper cited. That said, the paper is about operational analysis of queueing networks, not "performance operational analysis". That title seems to be made up and a synthesis of this type of operational analysis with performance engineering, a broader topic in IT. This particular topic doesn't seem to have coverage in RS and thus counts as original research. We probably could and should have an article on OA of queueing systems, but this article isn't it. Without RS backing it up, I recommend deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:16, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraper (software)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources in the article are primary, and none come from notable news sources. Majority of sources lead to dead links. Doing a quick Google search, I couldn't find any news sources at all for this software, just fan-made websites and YouTube videos. MusicalKnight (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is sourced almost entirely to primary sources, as well as three dead links that I suspect were also primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nektony

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

Seemingly non-notable software company. Three of the four sources provided don't actually even mention the company by name, and don't provide much detail about their products beyond including them in standard 'useful software' type roundup lists. My own search turns up other similar lists or passing mentions, but nothing approaching the kind of depth required for WP:CORP. Hug^syrup 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP LibStar (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 5 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 15:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AHG Industry

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

Fails GNG. The only source in the article just mentions it the company in passing and nothing comes up in a search for it. Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this online article in Der Tagesspiegel and a three page interiew with AHG's owner Lutz Stache on unternehmeredition.de. Not sure if this satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NCORP though. Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 16:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Dorama285 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: the Tagesspiegel source might be WP:SIGCOV, but also together with the other interview source i'd say AHG Industry currently doesn't pass the GNG. Nyamo Kurosawa (huh?) 18:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 5 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 15:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orc (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

In a similar manner to the deleted Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), this article fails WP:GNG and lacks notability, despite the notability of the original creature in question. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (SOFTDELETE) by redirecting to main article about Orcs. Orcs are orcs, and DnD orcs don't need a separate article, which is really plot summary and fancruft variations between editions/settings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with the other person. There's nothing special about DnD Orcs that warrants their own article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orc. There is a section in that article about their role in gaming, which can be expanded. BD2412 T 04:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails to establish notability. I'm not really sure what content would be worth merging. The article already has a sentence about D&D, so adding any more would be unneeded and give D&D too much weight despite not having notable Orcs. TTN (talk) 12:05, 6 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 15:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half-orc

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

A strange WP:SYNTH of Tolkien and the D&D concept, however, the idea of a half-orc fails WP:GNG as non-notable, lacking in significant mentions from reliable sources. I mean, we don't have an article for "half-demon" or "half-dragon". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. That said, I think the topic of half-races like this would make an interesting sociological / literary article. But I don't think much has been written outside half-elves in Tolkien angle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV Chetsford (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orc, which in fact already mentions half-orcs, and which has a section on orcs in gaming that can be expanded. BD2412 T 04:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough secondary sources to justify this article. The whole matter about the "half-orcs" in the Lord of the Rings seems to border on original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 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 13:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Zee Network

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

Fails WP:SAL CatcherStorm ^talk 03:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article creator has been blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pali_Upadhyay. Delete per WP:G5 and per nom. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unencyclopedic programming list and also for the reasons the creator is indefinitely blocked. Ajf773 (talk) 19:56, 5 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 15:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Zee Kannada

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

Fails WP:SAL, unreferenced CatcherStorm ^talk 03:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, it does fail WP:SAL in its current state. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773, would these long standing articles; List of programs broadcast by Zee TV, List of programs broadcast by Zee Bangla, List of programs broadcast by Zee Anmol be a violation of such as well? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with this list is that is formatted as a TV schedule, those other lists are just lists of programming. It is acceptable if the list features program(me)s original to that network. Ajf773 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd request it to be turned into a draft. I made it solely to preserve the contents of the programming of Zee Kannada while turning it into a redirect. I could eventually turn it into a list modelled on the others after verifying the contents. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article creator has been blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pali_Upadhyay. Delete per WP:G5 and per nom. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:13, 5 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 13:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driving-Tests.org

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

Has not shown significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Sources that have been used are a mishmash of classic passing mentions ("Car, motorcycle, and CDL practice tests and handbooks, presented in partnership with driving-tests.org." is the entirety of the Boston Public Library source), fake news sites (Industry News Corp clearly a company-written covert ad [49]), local stories (Palatine Library story by "community contributor" in a Chicago Tribune blog host [50]), or actually cover company advertising campaigns using their own campaign material, e.g. The Drive 2018 [51]. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Dorama285 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious spam. Sources that look in-depth are just press releases. --MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources. This is clearly promotional; written by editor whose only contribution was this article, Glendoremus (talk) 16:18, 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. A redirect can be created and if need be contested separately. Sandstein 15:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malghani Balouch

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

Not sure what this is. It has a more comprehensible version in it's past [52], but there's no citations in even that version. It's unclear if this is referring to a person or a tribe. WP:TNT applies even if deemed to be notable. No idea what this page is suppose to be about. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a sub-tribe of the Baloch people. Each tribe traditionally traces its (real or imagined) genealogy from a single (semi)-legendary ancestor, hence the confusing mention of a person in the first sentence. As far as I can see, this is too small a subtribe to warrant having a separate article. – Uanfala (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:TNT - a total re-write would be necessary to make any sense. I think a redirect to the main article is a cheap way out. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be done unless the main article is expanded with at least a mention of the tribe. Though if any content is going to be added anywhere, then that had better be List of Baloch tribes. – Uanfala (talk) 15:01, 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 13:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used Car Roadshow

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

What makes this TV show notable (WP:NMEDIA)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please expand your poor deletion rationale. A question about its notability and nothing else gives me nothing to go on about a decision. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand what? Failing WP:GNG is sufficient reason to consider deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. A mere 3 small mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability under GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geetanjali Singh

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

Previously deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Fails WP:GNG. — Jeff G. ツ 09:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Jeff G. ツ 09:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the subject passes WP:GNG, with several articles dedicated to her, including at least 2 Times of India articles. The page does need some work, though. (Personally, I think a nomination argument of failing WP:NACTOR would have been more compelling; however, she did appear in all 269 episodes of the Indian soap opera, Tumhari Paakhi, and she starred in the Bollywood film, Falsafa: The Other Side. She also appears to have had some minor success as a model.) Dflaw4 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Dflaw4. _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now added a couple of sources to the article. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:21, 5 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 13:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmi Kitab Khana

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

No coverage, the company fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and add more sources. It's founded in the 1940s and may thus be notable, but there aren't enough sources cited. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, Ambrosiawater is right, this publisher has more than 70 years of history behind its name. I rechecked all the references at this article. Replaced the dead ones, and now this article has 4 references from 2 major newspapers of Pakistan and 1 new external link. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked the references and none meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These topics usually get less coverage in English language media. Perhaps any Urdu speaking editor can help here. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cleanup by Ngrewal1. Article is taking shape and the publisher is notable. Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty meaningless vague !vote unless you can provide references to support your statement that the publisher is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources have been added since like a week ago when the last person claimed the article was taking shape and it obviously WP:NCORP without reliable sources being added. The ones currently there are complete garbage. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional piece lacking reliable sources. Dorama285 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 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. Sandstein 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thornhill Francis Broome

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

Long and detailed article about family history and protracted land disputes with no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only information in this article that is actually about the article subject and in an acceptable RS is about a beach being renamed. The rest is, as Mccapra states, exhaustive and mind-numbing detail concerning real estate litigation. I'm not sure if the SPA that created this was confused or trying to WP:COATRACK but either way, it doesn't have any evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:25, 6 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 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shang Na

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

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Haven't found any noteworthy coverage. Less Unless (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The evaluation of the sources is difficult due to the exclusive use of Chinese sources but the ones presented appear to be either not independent of the article subject or not significant. Normally, I would suggest an WP:ATD but the article creator has left this alone for nearly three years and is not likely to improve it if it was returned to draft. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:53, 6 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 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirasoft

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. There are a few articles out there about it, but they seem trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to pass WP:NCORP. Not supporting general notability guideline as well. - The9Man | (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Dorama285 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 5 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. KaisaL (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HYS Enterprise

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. It doesn't help that more then a few of the citations are 404 pages, including ones linking to the companies own website. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional without any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Original author has been called out for failing to disclose conflict of interest on another, related article. Glendoremus (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techforcatch is original author of this article and is also the Twitter handle for "Head of Marketing at Epicflow". Epicflow is product of HYS. Glendoremus (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable/advert. Dorama285 (talk) 22:33, 6 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 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu People's Party

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

Indian political party that fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of sources discussing the subject. A proof of existence in election commission list is not a proof of notability. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purported existence is not notability Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 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. Sandstein 12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Desiyak Katchi

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

State political party in India not recognized by the Indian Election commission. Article entirely unsourced. fails WP:ORGCRIT DBig Xrayᗙ 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 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. Sandstein 12:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishka Gupta

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

While thoroughly checking the references I found 3 or 4 to be primary, 4-6 are interview-type posts, Majority of the rest have barely 1 or 2 passing mentions of the subject. The tone of this article is praiseworthy/non-balanced. It seems to inherit notability from other publishing house's names and authors. Major chunk is not cited inlined. Dial911 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spamvertisement. No evidence of actual notability amongst all the refbombing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:56, 6 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 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Fient

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

There are no sources that demonstrate Mr. Fient's notability. The only external links are to his IMDB and YouTube pages. After searching his name, the only other results are a Kickstarter campaign in which he is mentioned and his Twitter handle. His website is not currently accessible. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He is 26 years old and at the very beginning of his professional career. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per nomination, the article fails WP:GNG and there's not much that I could find about the subject. Most credits are for small projects, so fails WP:FILMMAKER. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:13, 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 IBM Research. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Research – Almaden

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

Prodded, redirected to IBM Research, redirect reverted. Sigh. No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG (while the article appears well referenced at first glance, the refs only mention the lab in passing and are not in-depth about it). Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to IBM Research. No evidence of notability independent of parent organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matariki Whatarau

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO. From the coverage available in the article and elsewhere online, it seems that Modern Maori Quartet is likely notable, but it doesn't seem that Whatarau meets the criteria. If an article about the quarter is created, we could redirect this page to there, but until then deletion seems appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Matariki has had an extensive acting career in New Zealand. Including Theatre, television, cabaret and film. I am able to provide more information about his career with verifiable sources. Sycofantic (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request Would you mind declaring an conflict of interest you have with the articles you created?

From reading the article, I don't really see any major roles in notable works. Could you identify which movies/shows you think meet this criterion? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The Almighty Johnsons. (Jerome (Māui), Find Me a Maori Bride (2 series on Maori Television), The Pa Boys (film) Lead character "Tau". He recently toured with Modern Māori Quartet: Modern Maori Quartet: Two Worlds, a cabaret style theatre show.

These roles are relevant in New Zealand, especially within the Māori community. The Māori have their own television network Māori Television on which Matariki has appeared. Marginalized people may have a larger notability in their own community than in the larger society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sycofantic (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is measured by the amount of coverage available about the subjects, not just how "important" the subject is. Are there Maori community publications that you could bring to this discussion to back up the assertions that you're making? Also, please refrain from voting more than once. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR - he has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. Paora (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs analysis as to whether these television shows/films are actually notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person (along with their roles) does not appear sufficiently notable. (Also, user "Sycofantic" - who created and made almost all of the edits to this page - appears likely to have an undeclared conflict of interest, and this user's edits do not demonstrate a sufficiently non-neutral POV.) Rangatira80 (talk) 23:06, 5 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 13:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lee (artist)

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

Contested prod placed by SahmSahm90 and removed by Rob Myers. Subject does not appear to satisfy the WP:GNG. — Wug·a·po·des 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Wug·a·po·des 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be deleted as subject does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. References are to pages created by the subject. Contains exaggerated and misleading claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahmSahm90 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to find any coverage at that is in-depth. Determining notability is not helped by the page title (artist?) or the very common name. Overall this reads like a CV page for someone who might be well known within software circles, but whose work has not been reported on in depth and in RS. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominating user is a brand new account that has so far only edited this article, both to remove verifiable information and nominate it for deletion, as well as edit the article for another "Matt Lee". Seems highly suspect. -CapitalQ (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WUgopoedes is the nominator... but yes the PROD was placed by a user with about ten edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, putting aside the problems with the nominator, there still doesn't seem to be anything notable about this person. Either when it comes reliable sources or when it comes to what the article says about their accomplishments. While what he founded might be notable, which is questionable, notability isn't inherited. Btw, same might go for the other Matt Lee. It might be worth looking into a possible AfD there also for the person crying foul. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter what issues regarding the PRODing/Nominating for AfD of this article are, Lee isn't notable. The current referencing falls short of what is needed to prove WP:GNG is passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Dorama285 (talk) 21:17, 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. BD2412 T 04:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Benjamin

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

The only claim is mayor of Kollam which is not enough for her passing notability guideline. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Kollam is large enough that we would likely accept its mayors as notable if the articles were substantive and well-sourced, there is no city in the world where mayors are handed an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors without regard to their substance and sourcing. If all you can do is write that she exists, the end, and all you can show for sourcing is one article about her initial appointment to the role and three glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her, then you have not gotten her over the notability bar that mayors have to pass. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scant Google results are deceptive - I ran a newspaper archive search and found a whole bunch of articles from The Hindu and the New Indian Express. She's mayor of a large city, she's got the coverage to boot, and the only reason we're having this discussion is because apparently the main newspapers in her part of the world suck at having their articles indexed by Google. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After [User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] findings. IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IphisOfCrete, The Drover's Wife, The hit on the New Indian Express [53] is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election results. There are a few more (bunch of) news hits that are covering the mayor's announcement of some routine mayor works. My personal assessment is this subject fails WP:NPOL and should be deleted, but I can be swayed if there are indeed good sources. I dont think there are. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not "a hit" from the New Indian Express. There's at least a hundred article hits between it and The Hindu. They're just not indexed in Google for whatever reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Drover's Wife, for the benefit of the AfD, it is expected that you will share a few of them here so that others can review. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm accessing them through a subscription service (NewsBank). I can't copy and paste them without violating copyright, but many editors will have access to either that or similar newspaper databases that cover India. We determine notability through the sources that exist, not just the ones that are available in Google/on unpaywalled internet sites. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The major newspapers are available online in India. Both The Hindu and the New Indian Express mentioned above are available online. I do understand your point but without actually looking at these articles I cant change my stand. I will stand by my own assessment. DBig Xrayᗙ 10:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Clearly only some articles are available online, if you can find one with Google and I can find a good hundred with a news archive search. Notability is not determined by what sources you personally have access to: if you don't have access to any library archives, that's going to be a great many sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        There is still a question of quality of coverage in those search links. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Drover's Wife. Bookscale (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a suitable article about the municipal corporation should be good here. Mayors in India are generally heads of the municipal corporation body. This is important information to keep, but not necessarily as a standalone article. May I suggest to redirect this article to a page about the Kollam Municipal Corporation? This seems to be very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Rajendrababu where we do have the news articles regarding the mayor in context of daily municipal activities, but perhaps not enough about the person itself.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Kollam Municipal Corporation, per DreamLinker's proposal. The article seems unlikely to grow beyond a stub, and the information could easily by included in the "Mayors" section of the Kollam Municipal Corporation-article. If someone wants to create a more substantial article in the future and the sources exist, it can always be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and list it under Kollam_Municipal_Corporation#Mayors_of_Kollam. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KartikeyaS343, it is already listed in the link you gave. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 08:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I agree with the suggestion made by Pax:Vobiscum. Kollam Municipal Corporation can be expanded. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Drover's Wife; certainly winning a significant election by a single vote is noteworthy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Drover's Wife. Good work passes WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article suffice GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in article suffice GNG or WP:BARE Wm335td (talk) 20:41, 9 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) HawkAussie (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Maddison

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

I feel like this is tough one as it's shows that they made no appearance in the league competition but has in two cup competitions. The only thing that worries me is was these two appearances subs or actual starts as I can't access the archive without needing to pay.

Basically I feel like that this player might not pass WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the concept of substitutes wasn't introduced into English football until the late 1960s, more than thirty years after this guy played -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTBALL - also played for Nîmes - added reference. Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nominaton HawkAussie (talk) 23:37, 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.

[1] ttps://itukraine.org.ua/en/nix-solutions-will-participate-in-the-onstruction-of-innovation-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students.html

[2] ttps://it-kharkiv.com/en/nix-solutions-participates-in-creating-innovations-campus-for-kharkiv-it-students/

[3] ttps://ain.ua/en/2018/12/11/ukrainian-it-companies-in-software-500/

[4] ttps://ain.ua/en/2020/02/19/20-companies-from-ukraine-among-global-outsourcing-100/

[5] ttps://tradepostusa.com/ukrainian-software-provider/

[6] ttps://stpetecatalyst.com/nix-united-sets-up-u-s-headquarters-in-st-pete/

[7] ttps://stpeteedc.com/ukrainian-tech-provider-nix-united-opens-u-s-hq-in-st-petersburg-fl/

[8] ttps://www.prlog.org/12797548-nix-at-the-blockchain-expo-2019.html

[9] ttps://www.pr.com/press-release/796624

[10] ttps://www.bossynews.com/news/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida/

[11] ttps://www.tampabaynewswire.com/2019/10/15/nix-supports-regional-development-in-florida-81128

[12] ttps://www.insightssuccess.com/nix-solutions-ltd-exceptional-pioneer-ukrainian-industry/

[13] ttps://www.slideshare.net/Insightssuccess/the-10-best-performing-software-testing-solution-providers-2018

[14] ttps://thekharkivtimes.com/2015/09/21/law-enforcement-officers-do-not-let-personnel-one-of-the-largest-it-companies-to-work/

[15] ttps://ain.ua/en/2018/12/17/best-ukrainian-it-employers-2018/

[16] ttps://www.kyivpost.com/business/kharkiv-taking-steps-to-become-business-and-tech-powerhouse.html

[17] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/valentinpivovarov/2019/01/22/legaltechbrexit/#7a1da14bbea8

[18] Tanika Sarkar; Urvashi Butalia, eds. (1995). Women and Right-wing Movements: Indian Experiences. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-85649-289-8.

[19] HASAN, ZOYA (2010). "Gender, Religion and Democratic Politics in India". Third World Quarterly. 31 (6): 939–954. ISSN 0143-6597.

[20] Kumari, Abhilasha; Kidwai, Sabina (1998). "Women activists of the BJP". Crossing the Sacred Line: Women's Search for Political Power. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 978-81-250-1434-8.

[21] Menon, Kalyani Devaki (2011). Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu Right in India. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-0279-3.

[22] Berglund, Henrik (2 November 2009). "Including Women: Strategies of Mobilization Within the Hindu Nationalist Movement". India Review. 8 (4): 385–403. doi:10.1080/14736480903324982.

[23] Lukinbeal, Christopher L.; Kennedy, Christina B. (1993). "Dick Tracy's Cityscape". Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers. 55: 76–96. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

[24] Swayne, Steve (Spring 2004). "So Much "More": The Music of "Dick Tracy" (1990)". American Music. 22 (1): 60. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

[25] Owens, Susan (July 3, 1990). "Drop-Dead Looks". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

[26] Herman, Valli (May 15, 1990). "Dick Tracy inspires some arresting looks". The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

[27] Johnson, Marilyn (May 30, 1990). "Fashion detectives can track down 1940s duds". Oceanside North County Times. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

[28] Homan, Becky (July 12, 1990). "Not Left Breathless: Tracy's Fashion Statement Makes Barely a Whisper". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]