Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 March	11 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Coast Crew[edit]

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

No evidence of notability as an amateur youth rowing team. Some hits but nothing substantial to demonstrate notability through independent secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, significant coverage, and there are 3 external links to promote the team instead of help the reader. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Cole[edit]

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

Repeatedly created and poorly sourced bio of a non-notable porn performer. This article was apparently translated from es.Wikipedia. It is sourced entirely to an unreliable porn blog and two adult film databases. An independent search failed to turn up any reliable source coverage to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability. This page started out as a redirect to an unrelated film producer, Sidney Cole. Since the porn bio's creator insists on keeping it, I am bringing it to the community for consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, references are a mess (that refill 2 couldn't fix for me) and all from dubious sources Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reference layout were fixed since my comment, but are still unreliable sources Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. I suppose it's possible that coverage in reliable sources exists, but the huge lack of digitally-findable sources for someone in the digital era is a very bad sign for notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page shouldn't be deleted, as it is considered to be of a general interest topic, because, the central person in the article, is considered to be of a relative fame, (see Cole's Awards, and participations) unlike, what sr. Gene93k does say. On the other hand, the page is mistakenly confused with the redirection, as it does not write the same way, it does when spelling "Sidney". Also, that could be solved with an acclaration like, Sydney Cole (Pornographic Actress), to solve the redirection problem. I'll also do my best to improve it as better as posible. It doesn't deserve to be deleted, many articles, with way less coherence nor valuable infromation are still on the web. Why should an article with an average relevance be deleted? • Tomipelegrin (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General interest (general notability/WP:BASIC for Wikipedia purposes) requires support from independent reliable sources. Porn blogs and film databases are not acceptable sources. The porn awards won would not even have established notability when the old WP:PORNBIO guideline was in effect. They don't do it now especially since PORNBIO has been taken down. The original redirect was there as a plausible search term from an alternate spelling/misspelling. As for the "famous" porn starlet, without good references, she is not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Gene93k, particularly his argument above. Best, PK650 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer in pronography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources that meet basic wiki notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Alpateya (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:23, 18 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 Procedural close to allow a new AfD as proposed by davidwr. Sandstein 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Embers Fall[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I could not find any notable sources about this music group. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did not find any RS in regard to their sole album, either. Caro7200 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with existing-but-probably-non-notable article True Fate or preferably, procedurally close and re-open as a multiple AFD for Where the Embers Fall, True Fate, and the leftover history of the now-redirect Fleeting Moments. I suspect all 3 would fall quickly. All 3 were basically created by the same 2 accounts. @Caro7200: would you consent to a procedural close and re-open as a 3-way AFD if Biscuit3413 wanted to take that approach? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

davidwr Sure, I agree to that. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Caro7200 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simbi[edit]

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

I suggest moving to draftspace as it has been unsourced since Dec 2009, per WP:RS Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial rebuttal to deletion rationale It cites two sources, albeit one only as a reference to itself: 1) the coat of arms of Governor General Michaëlle Jean of Canada, as a self-reference (it exists, therefore it exists), and 2) Milo Rigaud's 1969(?) work "Secrets of Voodoo" (it's unclear if City Lights is the name of the parent work or of a location in New York). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with another article on a related topic rather than draft-ify or delete. Any Wikipedian with the time and interest can take the sources in Loa and related articles to beef this one up to at least Start-class with sufficient evidence of notability to withstand any notability-related deletion discussion. I am not that Wikipedian. As a "default" merge target if nothing better is found, go with Loa even though that article also covers Loa from Louisiana Voodoo. I have a weak preference for keeping over merging.
Sidebar outside the scope of this AFD, should be discussed on Talk:Loa: Merge Loa#Various loa which are barely more than a stub into a list article to avoid future AfDs about them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's pretty trivial to find sources, like [1] Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have begun adding RS, photo, infobox and categories to the article. I also made sure that it is not an orphan. Notable spirit/conduit in the Haitian Vodou religion. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST, and WP:HEY for Lightburst's additions. In addition to the sources already used in the article, I've found:
- The Haitian Vodou Handbook: Protocols for Riding with the Lwa by Kenaz Filan, Inner Traditions (2006)
- Voodoo and Afro-Caribbean Paganism by Lilith Dorsey, Kensington Publishing (2005)
- The drum and the hoe: Life and lore of the Haitian people by Harold Courlander, University of California Press (1960)
- Vodoo by Hans Peter Oswald, Lightning Source (2008)

I've added these to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst's additions and the reliable sources cited by the editors above. — Hunter Kahn 00:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequate sources exist and are present in the article. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found proving notability of this. Dream Focus 02:32, 17 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 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Bay Growth & Innovation Forum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Strictly promotional in nature Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to an absence of a suitable merge target. If the Santa Rosa, California Chamber of Commerce had its own article, I might list there. The page's initial creation by a clearly-COI account tipped me from "neutral" to "weak delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 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. Sandstein 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitcraft[edit]

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

Don't think this meets WP:GNG. Most of the sources listed at the time of nomination are not reliable (YouTube, Hermitcraft.com, Minecraft.net). ~~Gampur maybe (?) might meet it, but not significant enough to meet the criteria.~~ EDIT: per Sergecross73, that makes it all of the listed sources not reliable.

Looking up on Google, there are only 6 results returned for the News section, many of which I do not find reliable, including Metro (see WP:RSP#Metro), and the sources that otherwise are only mentions Hermitcraft in passing. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC) edited 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Gamepur isn’t an RS either. Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just notable enough to warrant an article of its own, it may not be large in terms of player count, but the community is very active and dedicated. The article is being kept updated with the latest seasons, too. >>BEANS X2^t 07:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC) >>BEANS X2^t 15:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:ITSPOPULAR and WP:LOOKSGOOD is not a reason to keep an article, BEANS X2. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity and fan enthusiasm are not valid reasons for keeping an article. (And even if it was, you didn’t cite or quantify anything.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A total of three hits on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine: two of which are forum posts and one is a user-submitted blog. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cant find any evidence that it meets the WP:GNG. All current sourcing is first party or obscure blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 13 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. We still don't agree, as a project, about what kind of lists we want to keep or to delete. Sandstein 09:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of train surfing injuries and deaths[edit]

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

The list, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accidental electric shocks on railways in Romania is the essence of triviality, and a clear violation of NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The individual events, do not belong in an encyclopedia . If we include this, it would make just as much sense to include lists of everyone who died in any sort of transport related accident.

But the introduction, which discusses numbers for the general phenomenon, could be added to Train surfing. (it also show the worthlessness of the individual listing--it reports 100s a year, but there are many fewer than that listed, just the few that happened to be individually reported & easily findable in online sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-sourced list with a clear scope, and an international viewpoint which is hard to find elsewhere.

WP:OSE nominations based on other articles carry no weight about this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Lots of people die in atypical ways. They make the news when they're gruesome and idiotic. But that doesn't mean we need to attempt to catalogue them all. Very easy to summarize, provide an international viewpoint, and just give examples in the main article without indiscriminately pretending we are EVERYTHING. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has sources, its notable enough to get ample coverage in reliable sources, just like the other articles of this type listed at Category:Lists of people by cause of death and elsewhere, its a fine part of this encyclopedia and should be kept. Dream Focus 19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. We simply do not require a list of every single fatality ever known, particularly as pretty much every entry on this list is non-notable and unnamed individuals, to provide a synthesis on train surfing risks. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 05:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very indiscriminate, full of original research. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where is the WP:OR in this? How is it 'indiscriminate'? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing linking all this incidents and no interest in reliable sources to connect them, so it is an indiscriminate collection of random news. Moreover, there are probably thousands of train surfing incidents, so to create a list of reasonable length one should somehow limit the scope, and as there is no indication how to do it and users do it by themselves, we have original reaserch. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. " Just go to the first para and there's an article on train surfing in Australia and the problems there, as an overall problem. We do not need a specific source which say that "There are railways in Brazil too and amazingly enough falling off a train in Brazil is just as dangerous as falling off a train in Australia is". This is BLUESKY: it's reasonable to look for sources from the national bodies which manage rail safety of national railways, but the similarities from country to country are so self-evident that there's little reason for the UIC to start making international lists as well.

Nor do we even need such a source: the emphasis on groups in LISTN is primarily there for the case when individual entries cannot demonstrate WP:N, whereas these are already well sourced as individuals.

"there are probably thousands of train surfing incidents" is a vague handwave about the wrong topic. This is not about train surfing, it's about cases where that leads to death, or at least serious injury (and these are all already WP:N incidents). If you want to delete List of train surfing incidents, then you're making the wrong argument at the wrong place. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well sourced list that passes WP:LISTN criteria Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andy Dingley and Lightburst. Well-sourced article that passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. — Hunter Kahn 19:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 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 keep. BD2412 T 04:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of film director and cinematographer collaborations[edit]

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

This list appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are no references to any sort of coverage that suggests why certain director/cinematographer collabs are notable. Bait30 ^Talk? 06:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 06:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 06:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but trim drastically. The partnership between specific directors and cinematographers is notable (e.g. David Lean and Freddie Young, Alfred Hitchcock and Robert Burks),[2][3] but this list goes overboard. Collaborations on TV episodes, for example, are worthless. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim per User:Clarityfiend. The bar should be set at notable collaborations; Coen brothers/Roger Deakins is another example. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very indiscriminate, full of original research. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article has zero sources to support the idea that any of these collaborations are notable. If someone wants a list like this to be in the encyclopedia, I would recommend that the article be started over to include only those collaborations which have sources to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am weeding out the unworthy and adding sources. Remember that Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing to no opinion in recognition of the fact that Clarityfiend has put effort into adding some sources and removing some of the unsourced collaborations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is being improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources that show that the subject passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Wright[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I can not find any secondary sources about this Aron Wright; they all appear to be primary sources. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC point 6. Presidents and founders of institutions of higher education have generally met GNG requirements. Gamaliel (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does Miami Valley College count as a major academic institution per #6 of WP:NACADEMIC? The school existed from 1870 to 1883, and I don't know how accreditation worked back then. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A college would need a lot of evidence to establish its having been a major academic institution if it only existed for 13 years. In other words, I would say that Miami Valley College wasn't even close to being a major academic institution. (None of the U.S.'s regional accreditation agencies were founded until a few years after this college closed. But even if the college had remained open a few more years and achieved accreditation, accreditation alone is not enough to establish "major" status.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every head of every college that ever existed is notable. There is no reading of "major academic institution" that would include Miami Valley College.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that Metropolitan90's reply above was made after this AfD was relisted. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Yale Obituary should be cited, but is not. [4] Some other references: [5][6][7]. WP:NPROF isn't usually so helpful for historical figures. It's a bit hard to find sources going this far back, but it looks like there's some coverage. It may (or may not) be enough for a weak pass of GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:21, 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 delete. KaisaL (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zehra Bajraktarević[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search reveals no RSes to support notability. I suspect that this is why one the sources in the article is for events around the singer's life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page and I say DELETE. Tvrtko Kotromanic (talk) 4:45PM, 10 March 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nerella Sharada[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Becoming a part of Telangana wing of his party and its affiliate organization are not enough for passing our notability criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Multiple sources with significant coverage, meets BASIC.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ "ఇవాంక అడిగితే ఏం చెప్తారు: కెసిఆర్ ఆమె సూటి ప్రశ్న". OneIndia (in Telugu). 28 November 2017.
^ "Police didn't act swiftly: Mahila Congress president". The Hindu. 30 November 2019.
^ "Telangana minister faces flak for saying no woman in Cabinet as they are at home". www.aninews.in.
^ "Karimnagar becomes a hot seat for all political parties in Telangana once again". The New Indian Express.
^ "Telangana minister G Jagadish Reddy faces flak for saying no woman in cabinet as 'they are at home'". Firstpost.
^ "Mahila Congress Chief Blames State Govt | INDToday". 24 April 2019.
^ "గర్ల్స్ హాస్టల్ పై నేరెళ్ల శారద ఆకస్మిక తనిఖీ, షాకింగ్ నిజాలు(వీడియో)". Telugu News from Andhra & Telangana – TeluguRajyam.com (in Telugu). 22 August 2018.
^ "కేటీఆర్ చదువుకున్న మూర్ఖుడు : కాంగ్రెస్ శారద ఫైర్". Telugu News from Andhra & Telangana – TeluguRajyam.com (in Telugu). 16 August 2018.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsztajn (talk • contribs) 28 February 2020 23:58 (UTC)

All source are presented here are routine coverage. And even sources did not make all article notable all time. Please, see Taimur Ali Khan for details.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your point was true, which I do not believe it is, routine is not trivial. NB subclause of BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input as to whether Goldsztajn's sources meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing how she meets WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor in-depth coverage needed for WP:NBIO/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She does seem to be meet WP:BASIC with the sources presented. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE. GNG fail. Dorama285 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ROUTINE cannot be invoked in AfD debates on individuals, WP:ROUTINE refers to the notability of events. Nerella Sharada is the president of a district with 1 million+ inhabitants, and a simple google search indicates plenty of coverage. --Soman (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 07:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single screen (game perspective)[edit]

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

This reads like an article built on one arbitrary and unsourced definition: video arcade games where the screen neither scrolls nor allows the player to "move" between different screens.

There are definitely games that fall into that category and it would have been a common design constraint in the early days of videogaming, but it's a grey area, poorly explored here - as illustrated by the article being unclear about whether Space Invaders and Breakout are single-screen games (because they don't scroll) or multiple-screen games which "move beyond these limitations" (because when you clear one level you move to the next one which may have different contents). There are many modern games that would also fall into this category, such as practically any puzzle game, but it doesn't seem like a meaningful progression. Some games have a play area larger than the screen, others don't. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 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 00:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:23, 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. Sandstein 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Ampasayya[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. No award, no full-length reviews from independent sources & no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 15 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 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mekki Hamed Mekki[edit]

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

Declined PROD, though the remover of the PROD claimed it "has sources" - which it doesn't, as they're all dead links. Doesn't appear to be independently notable; I'm pretty sure someone who was genuinely suspected of terrorism wouldn't simply have been deported. Apparently he was eventually charged with immigration fraud. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those links weren't dead when I checked them and the Fox News piece was substantial coverage about this specific person. But I can't see what's encyclopaedic about this, I can't imagine who would be searching for this information on Wikipedia and it's a textbook BLP1E. Strictly speaking I think the correct outcome would be to merge or redirect somewhere but I'm blessed if I can think where. In the absence of a suitable target I'll support a delete outcome in preference to keep.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP1E, or at most, Merge extremely selectively & redirect to aftermath of the September 11 attacks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 18 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) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus fleet in Singapore[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, The article generally focuses on buses owned by SMRT Buses, SBS Transit and Tower Transit Singapore however the 3 already have fleetlists in their articles which is generally preferred over lists such as this, Fails NOTGUIDE (imho) and GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Bus fleet lists are barely notable and often summate to WP:FANCRUFT. While there are some sources in the article, I question how well they actually verify content and to what extent. The nominator also makes a clear point that most fleet lists are limited to the scope of a single owner, and not a consolidation of every operator within a large city. Ajf773 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Right now, most of the buses (about 4,000) and possibly some depots/terminals are still owned by SMRT or SBS and operated in bus packages under the Bus Contracting Model through negotiated contracts that will all expire from now through 2026. The Land Transport Authority will take ownership of all the assets once the contracts expire and tender the contracts out competitively to operators. The rest of the assets are owned by LTA, and all 4 operators currently operate 1 package each under competitive contracts. Skaijie (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf. Point in question above, Wikipedia is not the place to mark up ownership of what, whatever the subject. Nightfury 11:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR. Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:00, 17 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) 08:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squirm[edit]

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

Nominating this because of the bands lack of notability. Can barely find any information about them online. GamerPro64 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deleted PROD (in 2016) on the basis that it meets WP:NBAND. No evidence given to justify this. Unless/until tere is fails NBAND, GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:53, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAN J[edit]

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

No indication of notability.

Other than official web site, no indication company even exists. I could not verify purported stock ticker symbol. Possibly qualifies as WP:CSD#G11/unambiguous advertising~~, but this could be a "student project" such as a real or fake company made up as a classroom exercise or it could be a blatant WP:HOAX~~. Either way, it should be deleted with prejudice against re-creation unless there is strong evidence Wikipedia's notability guidelines are met. If this is speedy-deleted, please link to this AFD in the deletion log. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Struck some possibilities per this, followup here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCOMPANY - lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator There are several discussions on the primary author's talk page, User talk:LilyRoha, that may be relevant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:17, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protofuse[edit]

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

It seems it is a microagency. No significant coverage. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was hijacked in 2019 diff; it used to cover a musician (of dubious notability), until an SPA replaced this content with an article for the advertising agency. Cheers, gnu 57 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genericusername57: I'm not sure what should I do now... maybe request technical close of this AfD and revert the hijacking? --MarioGom (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, that sounds sensible. Cheers, gnu 57 15:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Given the previous hijack of the article (see above), I withdraw this AfD. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonga (singer and producer)[edit]

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

This article does not satisfy general notability or any of the musical notability criteria. Google search does not find information about the subject (the Tanzanian musician), only about the Angolan musician and the town in Ethiopia. The references in this article are in the nature of press releases rather than in-depth coverage.

Maintenance tags that have been applied to the article have been removed without discussion, so that there has been no effort at resolution of notability issues.

The article consists largely of promotional content and of trivia, which could be removed, but would not leave much because the subject is not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete and block the creator. This is either paid for spam or an autobiography. Either way, This Bonga is not notable. (Bonga (musician) however, is.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; subject does not pass WP:N criteria Chetsford (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Per nom. (I can’t format my delete on this ipad) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Draft:Bonga (producer). If the article is deleted, the draft can either be kept for future notability or deleted, based on the consensus as assessed by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 14 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) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Arbec[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist. As always, local television personalities are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but rather they need to meet one or both of two conditions: either they have a nationalized claim of significance, such as winning a noteworthy national journalism award, or they need to have enough reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG. But the three footnotes here are her own staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer, a weekly community hyperlocal, and a university student newspaper -- which means the sourcing isn't good enough for GNG, and there's no nationalized notability claim being made here at all to relieve her of having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local level broadcast jouranlist, nothing rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as delete. Per the review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 3, I'm backing out that close and relisting this for an additional week's discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, no evidence this meets GNG or NJOURNALIST. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 2011 Gazette reference in the article easily meets GNG with it's in depth story about here. And I just added another recent in-depth piece. How User:Levivich doesn't this meet GNG? Also added ~~four~~ six other references related to her Canadian Screen Award nominations~~, win,~~ and previous awards. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that you can use to get a person over GNG do not include (a) the alumni magazine of their own alma mater, (b) small neighbourhood pennysavers like The Montrealer or The Suburban, (c) university student newspapers like The Concordian, or (d) content self-published by her own past or present employers. So the only source you've added that counts a bean toward getting her over GNG is the Montreal Gazette article, and that's not enough to singlehandedly pass GNG all by itself — even a basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one source of that calibre.

Also, she did not win the Canadian Screen Award in 2019 — the winner of a category in that source is the person whose name is bolded, not the person whose name is first. The bolded name and winner in 2019 was Michelle Dubé, and Arbec has never won a Canadian Screen Award at all to date in any category. And the awards that she has won are much less notable awards that are not notability clinchers if they can be "sourced" only to her own staff profile from her own employer — the extent to which any award confers an WP:ANYBIO pass is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which the granting of that award gets reported as news by media other than her own employer. If your only possible sources for any given award are (a) her own staff profile on her own employer's website, or (b) the awarding organization's own self-published website or press release about itself, because fully independent /journalistic reportage about that award is non-existent, then by definition that award is not notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it.

And while the Canadian Screen Awards do get reported as news, and thus are an ANYBIO-passing award, merely being nominated for an award that a person has not won is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to get over GNG on her sourcing either — so she still needs more than just one solid source amid a bunch of university student newspapers, neighbourhood pennysavers and WP:SPIP from her own employer before she clears the bar. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the Montreal Gazette article - it was added by User:RebeccaGreen in November 2019 during the AFD - why did User:ST47 not mention that a GNG sournce had been added after everyone had commented, when they originally closed the AFD? I disagree with statement that Concordia article isn't good for GNG. It's an in-depth article about a notable former student. I also disagree that local newspapers don't count for notability - there's nothing to back that up GNG - though is "The Montrealer a local newspaper ... I thought it was a website, and wasn't counting it to GNG. Tell me more about these local newspaper articles that I haven't seen? Oops, I goofed about the award win - I appreciate the fix - but I didn't see that counted to GNG either, given the brevity of it - I even commented about those references not meeting GNG when I added them! Nfitz (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Most coverage seems to be promotional blurbs from alumni organization, her TV station, network, or industry award organization announcing her nomination. Glendoremus (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why User:Glendoremus do you not think that this is not reliable, independent, and in-depth? Sure, many of the references are blurbs, etc., documenting her career. But that's fine, as long as there is some reliable independent in-depth coverage. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not that as long as there's one piece of reliable independent in-depth coverage, the person gets a free pass over GNG even if all the rest of their sourcing is unreliable, non-independent or non-in-depth junk — even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires several pieces of reliable, independent and in-depth coverage, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since when do we re-open months-old AfD debates? Still a non-notable local journalist, and overturning a close that had zero opposition doesn't seem to be right to me. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 15 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 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GMN Healthcare[edit]

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

An article on this company's main product (contributed by the same editor, and with similar references) was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro360 Nutrition Partner). An Indian media search turned up another version of the Nutrition & Wellness Awards 2019 report, but that Emerging Company award is not inherently notable. I am not seeing the coverage about the company which is required to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely PROMO at present, clean up does not seem possible as I would agree with nominator that there are no independent sources to be found, other than directory/sales listings, I can only see one piece of churnalism on Forbes India, no notability demonstrated, fails CORP.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable advert. Dorama285 (talk) 19:06, 16 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. KaisaL (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Listcruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. IW. (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC) I still believe this is a non sense list. However I do understand the notability of representation which means the best option should be to move it to History of LGBT and animated series, relevant and concise to the points. An example one could follow is History of homosexuality in American film. IW. (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still has value in its current form. That would be a good example, but that page has very little sourcing and considering that most of the animation on this page is anime, there are very few English sources. For the time being, I'm just reorganizing it into gender identities so its easier to navigate.Historyday01 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't challenge my argument at all, if anything, it solidifies it. IW. (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that solidifies it. Lets say that we do make an article specifically about the history of LGBT characters and themes in animated series. Great, that'd be an amazing idea. But I don't see how going from that, to a page which is just about the characters and nothing else (sans a lead paragraph) is nonsensical. Rather than focusing on various aspects of the representation, history, and all that, it focuses squarely on the characters. We have history of animation, which gives info on the medium, but we also have pages that are just lists and focuse solely on which films were released; either by decade, country, etc. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building off what PanagiotisZois said, I don't think it solidifies it either. We could create an article like that, but I think it should be created while keeping these list pages.Historyday01 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't believe this is an indiscriminate or trivial list, and given the subject matter I think it's at least mildly insulting to suggest that it is (though I do not believe it's the nominator's intention to be insulting). I believe it's more than appropriate to have a list about this subject matter, something we have had in decades past. It should be well-sourced and this article could use some work in that regard, but it would not be difficult at all to find reliable sources for most of these entries, and the need for improvement is not a valid reason to delete an article. — Hunter Kahn 15:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though trim out entries that aren't sourced to a third-party. Entries should be either a third-party making the observation, or the creator of the work talking to a third-party about the choice to make the character(s) LGBT as to 100% confirm the listing on here. --Masem (t) 15:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close The original list of List of animated series with LGBT characters should have been nominated as well and marked with a template, as it's roughly the same, only nominating this amounts to WP:GAMING behavior._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I know we're not supposed to use WP:INTERESTING to support a topic's notability, but I think the nomination is essentially based on WP:NOTINTERESTING. I think the article needs at least a good paragraph of text about the subject, but that can be resolved with normal editing. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list meets our criteria for WP:LISTN. This is informative and aides in navigation. The list serves our readers, and that is why we exist. The list was created today and has had no time to breath before being slapped with multiple templates. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unsurprisingly. First of all, I would not call such a page as "listcruft". Multiple such lists focusing on LGBT characters have existed on Wikipedia for years. And other similar lists which people could describe as arbitrary exist; such as List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication, which is even a featured list. LGBT representation, especially in the past few decades has become a much discussed subject. In fact, while I can't talk much about anime, I have found multiple articles discussing LGBT representation in Western animation from the past few years; such as how it has progressed and improved in the last few years. Thus, it's not like a grouping like List of animated series with LGBT characters is arbitrary, and it does have notability. Moreover, regarding representation of minority characters in media, I'm sure there are other similar examples about, i.e. Black / African-American characters. Having said that, I do kind of where TheLongTone is coming from and a problem somebody could argue this list has. It is a very focused one; concerning LGBT characters, in a specific medium, and in a specific decade. One may ask, why does it have to be this specific? But that's kind of the problem. Obviously having a list with every single LGBT character from every fictional medium would be impossible to manage and navigate. Hence the creation of the aforementioned "LGBT characters in animated series list". But even that list ended up being the single largest one on Wikipedia. On the list's talk page, various options on how to split it were discussed, but this seemed to best and most objective one; rather than separating them by country of origin. Going back to what I said earlier about coverage for the cartoons, I'm sure that that is also something that can be discussed in the lead section and showcase how this kind of list / grouping didn't just randomly pop out of nowhere. Lastly, while the list has issues, a shitton, I don't think that warrants a deletion. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia in an even worse condition, but they're still kept. They have the potential to change and become better; so does this page. Now, I'm not gonna make a false promise and say that I'll single-handedly bring this page to featured list status, but I'm willing to help with it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Whataboutism. IW. (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This article was a bold split from the main article, List of animated series with LGBT characters, and so is List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s, as can be seen in the page history of the main article, and a very brief discussion on the talk page of the main article. Unfortunately, the advice given at split was not followed - To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". The Copied template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline. So using the nominator's logic, then all of these articles should be deleted, or in the alternative, be recoginized for what they are, splits from the main article (that didn't follow the information listed at WP:PROSPLIT). Isaidnoway (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listcruft my foot. (Which other editors put more elegantly.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They get coverage for this, so its a notable thing to list. Dream Focus 23:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page clearly needs work, but its existence helps with reducing the size of the original page. I think the comment by [[User:Isaidnoway| Isaidnoway ] is a good one. There should be a summary or description at the beginning of this article. Splitting this off into its own article seems very slapdash as to say the least.Historyday01 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listcruft may be rationale to trim a bit, not to delete. gidonb (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm working on List of animated series with left-handed charcters as we speak.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not promising to keep that one! gidonb (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly acceptable list, and the subject of reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gleeanon409. I will soon be working on this list to organize it the same as the "List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s" and "List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s" pages. On the latter page, the sourcing still needs some work, clearly. But, that's a work in progress.Historyday01 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per OP's reasoning. This, along with the other 2 articles need to be improved upon from the source article.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the very definition of an article that should be improved rather than deleted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gleeanon409. Loyalmoonie's reasoning is flawed and doesn't recognize the importance of reducing the size of Wikipedia articles, which is the reason this one exists. The article MUST be improved rather than deleted, which is what I am trying to do, currently.Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 17 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 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sarracino[edit]

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

Reviewed as part of new page curation process. IMO misses wp:notability by a long shot. No suitable coverage for wp:notability. Secondary source coverage is just brief mentions or quotes. Nothing even claimed in the article indicates wp:notability. A sidebar concern is that the creator is obviously wiki-experienced but has only 22 lifetime edits under this user name, all on 2 corporate bios and one business. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources that are reliable are actually about Sarracino. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 17 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 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IT Works[edit]

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

It seems it fails WP:GNG, although given its name, it was a bit hard to do a search test. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article describes this as a "niche software development company". The Products section describes its sectoral opportunity, the Leadership section describes the CEO and the exotically-named Research Institution Success Stories/Product Development section says they attend trade fairs: all suitable for the website of a company going about its business, but mundane, without claim to notability. Searches combining the company name with sector descriptions return listings but not the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:41, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Association for Jewish Studies[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A learned society is usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, it's a common non-profit organization, not a learned society; moreover, it is quite new (founded in 2015) and have not received any coverage by reliable sources. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how relevant this is, but the UAJS certainly portrays itself as a learned society: "In cooperation with world’s top academic institutions, the UAJS organizes round tables, discussions, public lectures, mini courses, and other academic events. The UAJS co-administers the MA in Jewish Studies Program [....] Judaica Ukrainica, a peer-reviewed annual journal of the UAJS, accepts scholarly contributions – articles, documentary publications, and reviews[.]" I can't find anything to suggest this portrayal is somehow false. -- Visviva (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic, no clear rationale for deletion (and while it's often forgotten on AFD, deletion should always be a last resort reserved for unsalvageable content). NORG seems to be adequately satisfied by the cited sources (e.g. at least two paragraphs of dedicated coverage here, an English-language profile of the founder with significant detail on the organization here). But even if the subject-matter of the article fails NORG, that would merely suggest that the UAJS does not merit a stand-alone article -- i.e. it should be merged to some other article on a more general topic. There is no deadline, so we can wait for topic editors to create Jewish Studies in Ukraine or similar, at which time they can reach a consensus on whether this content should be merged there or kept distinct. -- Visviva (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the Russian discussion attracted a grand total of one (1) participant, and the nom there seems to have hinged on significance (?!) rather than sourcing. I assume that was a proper application of RU's policies, but it would be a highly inappropriate example to follow here. -- Visviva (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Visviva:, not significance; значимость means notability (WP:GNG). Wikisaurus (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see sources, so I see notability. From my experience with the Russian Wikipedia they delete organizations (commercial or non-profit) far too easy and without serious discussion. In any case, that is not valid argument. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 14:08, 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. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Robledo[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything that adds up to WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The provided sources are a mess of trivial and non-independent coverage; the absolute best among them are [8] and [9], which don't have more than trivial coverage of Robledo. As for MUSICBIO, none of the orchestras that Robledo has played in seem to be notable, and given the size of orchestras, I'm not sure that simply having played in a notable one would even be enough for MUSICBIO to begin with. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment I circled back on this article at least a half dozen times. In approving this out of AfC I relied on the 6th prong of WP:MUSICBIO. I'll be the first to admit I'm probably not as qualified as some in making the determination of what constitutes a notable ensemble. I didn't examine each ensemble individually, but instead took into consideration the totality of his involvement with multiple ensembles. My judgement was that this subject had a better than not (if even just barely) chance of surviving AfD. To be honest, I have no real interest in defending this article one way or another, just stating my logic in approving it. Ultimately, the best arbiter of this may be some well versed in ensembles. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:11, 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]

Draftify The nomination is broadly correct but I have difficulty suggesting delete because there is enough to suggest that the subject may be able to pass WP:NMUSICBIO either with more time or more research. Not currently notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Sanson[edit]

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

After noticing this article did not have any Reliable sources attached to it I search for this artist. I was not able to find any Reliable sources that would make this individual notable for a Wikipedia article.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search found one source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self-promotion. Deb (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find anything to substantiate the notability of this person, nor their work or that it is held in public museum collections. Does not pass WP:NARTIST Netherzone (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS, and external link goes to a FB page. --Theredproject (talk) 15:51, 14 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. Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Memory of a Melody[edit]

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

A sampling of the sources:

Emurg.com: 404
OurCityRadio.com: 404
TuneCore: Directory listing
Amazon.com: Not allowed to be linked
BraveWords: Appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight
Sacurrent.com: Passing mention as one of many acts at a single concert
Rocksposure.com: Blog where artists can submit to be advertised
Music.apple.com: Sales site, not allowed
RenegadeRadio: 404
Metalholic: Advertising blog

And so on. Most of the semi-reputable sources seem to be merely blogs where musicians can submit their content for review and advertisement purposes. Everything else is a trivial mention, a sales site, or a 404. The article smacks of WP:REFBOMBing. I chainsawed out a "trivia" section (really, we're still doing that shit?) that added nothing in terms of notability. The band exists and has extensively cherry-picked as many passing mentions as possible to appear far more notable than they really are. They don't even have so much as a placeholder on Allmusic. The content present smacks of advertising at best but does not give a true assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Did you even read what I said about the sources? Nearly all of the sources are either 404, sales sites, or promotional blogs that only publish PR blurbs for bands that pay for the right. Literally almost nothing in the article is a WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon, this is my first time participating on WikiPedia. I am a Spotify convert for this band, and thought I could help. I have tried to review the rules as best I could in a short time. From what I can tell, the main issue is if the artist is "notable" and I believe this artist is. I jumped onto Spotify and they've got ~4.6 million listens on their most popular song, and three songs over the 1 million mark. On Youtube their official channel has a fair following with 2.45k subscribers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaEyLZWWUUA). Regarding links, the EMURG link may be updated via the wayback machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20131205225130/http://www.emurg.com/rock/memory-of-a-melody-things-that-make-you-scream/). Finally, I respectfully dispute the characterization of Metalholic as an advertising blog. The author of the piece on Memory of a Melody has written quite a lot and doesn't seem to be affiliated with the band (http://metalholic.com/author/quasimojo/) Although Metalholic does state they allow "PR" submissions on their about page, I don't actually think that's what this is, or if it is, there's some sort of curating and review process. I assess this by looking at the author and seeing he has many submissions, not just Memory of a Melody, but am open to correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.174.169 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@75.163.174.169: Please read this page right here. This elucidates the notability of artists. Spotify numbers are not a factor of notability for us. Neither are YouTube subscribers. I have thousands of them myself and I only rarely upload videos. The blogs are borderline at best and seem highly promotional. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not really find any RS about their sole album, either. Caro7200 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This band was formed in 2012, giving plenty of time for solid sources to appear if they were notable; clearly they are not.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's thorough analysis of sourcing. Can't blame Jax 0677 for trying to keep his own article ;) ——SN 54129 18:56, 12 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 Dundurn Press. Sandstein 09:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Allen & Son Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure how notable the organisation is in its present form, but as a publisher it was certainly notable, and the article should deal with both.Rathfelder (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not established in this case. PK T(alk) 13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the publisher Thomas Allen & Son is undeniably notable, & Dundurn Press is notable. Howabout we take the parts worth saving & add them to those 2 articles & rearrange the content so we don't even need to replace what was here with a redirect? -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the only apparent merge target is Dundurn Press (pace Llywrch?) as "Thomas Allen Publishers" redirects to it. As there's so little in Thomas Allen & Son Limited and it's so closely related to Dundurn Press, a merge does seem the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 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 redirect to Gila County, Arizona. Sandstein 09:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burch, Arizona[edit]

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

Another passing siding, formerly on the SP and now on the Arizona Eastern Railway, a mile or so south of their shop at the north end of the line. There's no siding there now and I can find no evidence that anyone considered this a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Was a mining camp, had a population of 15 in the 1930s when this was written, but this was probably higher in the 1870s mining boom. A mention in Globe, Arizona might be appropriate.----Pontificalibus 19:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A temporary work camp at a mine is not a notable settlement or necessarily a legally recognized community, can be discussed in history/geography of nearby established city. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92 recommendation. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep per [www.newspapers.com/image/583742615/] [www.newspapers.com/image/46152492/] (notes a station) and another article noting a pumping site - need to do more work, very surnamey and newspapers.com seems to be down for maintenance mid-research but seems to have been a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete As per SportingFlyer, there are two trivial articles in newspapers.com: Smelter to be build near Globe and Suspect released in conjunction with murder. As per the nomination, the WPA Guide that stated that Burch had a population of 15. Interestingly, a different edition of the WPA guide does not mention the population. It does not appear that Burch had a Post Office or was otherwise legally recognized. This location does not have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources", but somehow I feel it is a level above the random stations that we have been seeing lately that clearly need to go. Cxbrx (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirect, where exactly to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible redirect target Gila County, Arizona Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Globe, Arizona. Or redirect to Gila County, Arizona. Or delete. Burch is not a legally recognized location. Some versions of the WPA guide state that there was a population of 15 at Burch, but there is a lack of non-trivial coverage. Cxbrx (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though it's unclear whether or not there is a current population, in the 1930s there was a population of people. Notability isn't temporary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 18 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. KaisaL (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Guenther Braun[edit]

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

Fails WP:Author and WP:ANYBIO. Largely based on WP:PRIMARY, so I also searched for sources outside the article but couldn't find much. Dorama285 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would not call for a speedy deletion, since she does have some write-ups in scholarly work and has some citations. Reasonable minds can disagree - this is not an open and shut case. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached out to three relevant wiki-projects in the hope of getting more discussion. I do not believe this violations WP:CANVASS. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, you might ask at the Refdesk if anyone has leads on profiles or scholarly criticism. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it meets criteria for speedy delete. With respect to WP:AUTHOR, I think there is enough there about queer identity in the Mennonite context that it may meet criterion 3. That possible area is admittedly a relatively specific one, but I wouldn't rule it out. With respect to WP:PRIMARY, the first four references in the article are written by individuals other than the subject, so I don't think it's clearly a reliance on primary sources. However since those cites aren't online, it's difficult to judge. The fact of only one book published certainly counts against notability. I think further investigation is needed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so that should be out of the question. As for the non-primary sources offered, the Cruz book has a 17-page chapter about Braun's novel, the Kuester paper has about three pages of coverage, and the Milne article is a two-page review. All are published by academic publishers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the sources that I identified above not sufficient to demonstrate notability? I really think that something needs to be done to stop people commenting at AfD without taking the previous discussion into account. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To reiterate Phil Bridger's point, there are some significant academic non-trivial sources establishing this writer's importance. User:Mennowiki
Keep Now that Phil Bridger has reviewed the hard copy material (Thanks, Phil), I think there is sufficient academic commentary on the author to move to Keep. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first three sources in the article make it clear that this is a notable work worthy of academic interest. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:07, 13 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. BD2412 T 22:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Falk[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER BonkHindrance (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Dorama285 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is CBC, Mennonite World Review, and The Canadian Mennonite not "reliable sources?" Please clarify. User:Mennowiki

We get it, he's a Mennonite. What else has he done? Dorama285 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get articles written about you in such publications by virtue of "being a Mennonite." Nor does this Wikipedia article say, "Matt Falk is a Mennonite. Done." It clearly states he's a noted stand-up comedian, with successful albums, appearances, etc. (User:Mennowiki))

Reworded some of the article and added another two sources from CBC and CTV News. (User:Mennowiki))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources are just different publications from the same websites and the same content. For example, there are 3 sources from CBC that talk about the exact same thing with no encyclopedic information, and two from Mennonite News which do the exact same thing. There is no notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:02, 16 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 10:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly Pub[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:RS BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing coverage in Newspaper Archive. Will add some to article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added some newspaper articles, one of which I found on the open internet. The subject meets WP:GNG. Cleanup/removal of press releases is in order, and expansion would be nice, but AfD isn't that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable chain of pubs/restaurants which RS can be found to pass WP:V and WP:N. 11 locations WP:NTEMP Wm335td (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORGCRIT as nom says, specifically WP:AUD. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DiamondRemley39's additional sources, has RS. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable chain of restaurants which had 13 locations at one time in the New England area of the United States. Notability is not temporary. Passes WP:ORGCRIT:with significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Many sources exist outside of the article. Telegram, Boston Globe, and more. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 16 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 North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Room of the Great North[edit]

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

Spam article failing WP:GNG BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article with no notability demonstrated. Article creator admits new organisation - though developed from a long established one - so secondary material is scarce. Some of the "secondary" sources added some are PR and/or WP:ROUTINE. I think this may be WP:TOOSOON. Suggest a selective merge to North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers. b uidhe 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short summary (one paragraph) to NEIMME as Buidhe rightly suggests. NEIMME is a well-established institute and a valuable resource for the study of mining in Britain (much appreciated by this Wikipedian). The 'Common Room' is an innovation within NEIMME and may well be short-lived. It is worthy enough but its independent notability is far from established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You folk are hard to please! As article creator I disagree that the article should be merged because the Common Room may be short lived - where is the evidence for that? The Common Room is not an innovation within NEIMME - without the Common Room NEIMME's assets that provide the "valuable resource for the study of mining in Britain" would have been sold and probably dispersed. To reduce this article to a paragraph in the NEIMME article does not seem appropriate. Mining007 (talk) 12:51, 14 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 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Templeton[edit]

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

The is essentially advocacy; a press release, not a WP article. I don't think it is fixable--the advocacy is pervasive throughout the article, there isn't really enough underlying notability DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify If the page creator intended this to go through the AfC process and is willing to go through that process then draftify is fine. Otherwise, delete per nom. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sounds promotional and should not even be a draft let alone a article Dq209 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only really mainstream media source is Deutsche Welle, and its coverage of the is merely a couple of soundbites from interviewing the subject, nothing about her. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all the introductory paragraphs are written as WP:PROMO and fails to comply with WP:NPOV. The article is biased and has been clearly written as an advertisement. Abishe (talk) 07:57, 15 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) 05:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choudhary Mohammad Yasin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and couldn't obtain much information about the subject in Google search index. Seems to have written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Just being a Deputy Commissioner does not provide a presumption of notability to qualify for a stand alone article. "There needs to be more sourcing evidence advancing notability". Evidence of a promotional article can be seen by the repeating of one source five times (50%), that is obvious refbombing to pad sourcing, to give the illusion of such notability. Otr500 (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable bureaucrat that fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 17 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YRG Care[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and clearly fails to comply with WP:NPOV. It has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of coverage in independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of a reasonable BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Please do not conflate content with the subject of the article. YRG CARE was founded by the the doctor who first identified HIV in India. Subject of studies in peer-reviewed journals.^[1]^[2] Clearly the centre was a pioneer of HIV/AIDS research in India.^[3]^[4] "one of India’s first voluntary HIV counselling and testing facilities...YRG care ... [undertook] fundamental and important clinical trials in conjunction with the NIH AIDS clinical trials programme...[Solomon's] work and the setting up of YRG CARE were significant factors in slowing the epidemic."^[5]

References

^ Solomon, S; Kumarasamy, N; Challacombe, SJ (April 2016). "The social impact of HIV/AIDS in India". Oral Diseases. 22: 15–18. doi:10.1111/odi.12449.
^ Tarakeshwar, Nalini; Krishnan, A. K.; Johnson, Sethulakshmi; Solomon, Suniti; Sikkema, Kathleen; Merson, Michael (2006). "Living with HIV Infection: Perceptions of Patients with Access to Care at a Non-Governmental Organization in Chennai, India". Culture, Health & Sexuality. 8 (5): 407–421. ISSN 1369-1058.
^ Sivaram, Sudha; Srikrishnan, Aylur Kailasom; Murgavel, Kailapuri G.; Mayer, Kenneth H.; Anand, S.; Celentano, David D.; Solomon, Suniti (2005). "An Approach to Addressing Ethical Issues in a Community-based Risk Assessment for HIV: A Case from Chennai, India". Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition. 23 (2): 165–176. ISSN 1606-0997.
^ Kumarasamy, N.; Solomon, Suniti; Flanigan, Timothy P.; Hemalatha, R.; Thyagarajan, S. P.; Mayer, Kenneth H. (2003). "Natural History of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Disease in Southern India". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 36 (1): 79–85. ISSN 1058-4838.
^ Kumarasamy, N; Ranganathan, K; Tappuni, AR; Challacombe, SJ (April 2016). "Suniti Solomon, Founder-Director Y.R. Gaitonde Centre for AIDS Research and Education (YRG CARE)". Oral Diseases. 22: 8–9. doi:10.1111/odi.12425.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment : All content is sourced and everything written is factual. Unsure why it was perceived promotional. If specific portions that come across as promotional are highlighted, can rework on those to make it more neutral.

IamKhandelwal (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 12 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 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Entrepreneurial Acceleration Lab[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill startup accelerator. Lacks significant coverage. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. Nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already given. Plus, it seems like they where pretty flash in the pan and only lasted for a while around 2013. There website doesn't even work. So, there's no chance they will ever be notable if they aren't already. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 12 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 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riding Acres, Maryland[edit]

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

This small housing development fails WP:GEOLAND. No indication that this is a distinct or notable populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 04:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not on the 1944 or 1984 topo, no relevant hits in newspapers.com, no indication of notability. Reywas92^Talk 07:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jad Gillies[edit]

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

A contested PROD. Subject easily fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my PROD endorse, I cannot find any appropriate IRS. Aoziwe (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources Joseywales1961 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 15 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 10:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Culture in strategic decisions[edit]

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

In my opinion, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, and very well may be a WP:COPYVIO of this and other webpages. Phuzion (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Phuzion (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article has all the earmarks of an essay or assignment produced for some other purpose and uploaded to Wikipedia. The content of the article is not summarizing what its references say, they are there just to decorate or identify a few of the points being made. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per above. SerTanmay (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and the creator seems to be self promote. IW. (talk) 11:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Acres, Indiana[edit]

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

Another subdivision stub based on GNIS data. No sign that this is a distinct populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 04:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Annexed by Columbus in 1993 but lacks significant coverage for neighborhood to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altamont Switch, Indiana[edit]

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

This is a railroad switch. No sign of a populated place or anything notable here. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple mentions in newspapers.com in the 1920s as – you guessed it – a railroad switch [10][11][12], nothing since as a notable community. Please don't mass-create articles from the GNIS without WP:SIGCOV. Reywas92^Talk 04:49, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Jean Addition, Indiana[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision within Lafayette, Indiana. No sign that this is a separate populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of 17 subdivisions annexed (or considered for annexation) to Lafayette in 1994 [13]. Other results are all classifieds for home sales. Lacks significant coverage for neighborhood to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 04:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stonegate, Indiana[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision, no sign that this is an officially recognized place per WP:GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of Mattson Custom Homes there were featured in the local Noblesville Ledger's "Suburban Homes" section when the housing development was built in 2005. WOW, the builders association even had Home-A-Rama there! Lacks significant coverage for neighborhood to pass WP:GEOLAND#2, GNIS listing is not "legal recognition" warranting notability. Reywas92^Talk 04:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allens Acres, Indiana[edit]

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

This mass-created GNIS stub covers a small subdivision that does not appear to be an officially-recognized community or populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1949 advertisement for the small housing development, possibly annexed to Whitetown in 1976, no evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble reconciling the location on the map with "just north of (Whitestown)" and "one mile North of the city limits", but that's a moot point since it doesn't meet GEOLAND either way. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 17 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) 14:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmwood, Indiana[edit]

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

Another mass-created GNIS stub. This is a subdivision of Lebanon, Indiana, not a separate populated place in its own right. –dlthewave ☎ 03:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GMaps took me to the actual city of Elwood, Indiana at first, but this the only newspapers.com results for this are mentions of home addresses on Elmwood Drive. Lacks significant coverage for neighborhood to pass WP:GEOLAND#2, GNIS listing is not "legal recognition" warranting notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeagers Curve, Indiana[edit]

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

No sign of any community or population here. Another GNIS mass creation. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply incorrect to claim it "is an unincorporated community" unless you're counting the one homestead nearby as a community – maybe Mr. Robert Yeager of Earl Park, who was hiring a farm hand in 1945, lived there? Archive results only show it's a frequent site for car accidents [14][15][16]. 1953 map lacks it, clearly not populated in in 1962. Another pitfall of negligent bulk use of GNIS – why does WP:BEFORE link only to a page about deletion when it applies to article creation too? Reywas92^Talk 05:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unpopulated place. Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasah Islamiah[edit]

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

Non notable article about a Deobandi school. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:27, 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 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGCRIT (schools have been stated as included), also seems self-written. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 02:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORGCRIT lacks third party sources and now there thousands of mosques and islamic school not clear why this particluar one is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SiSTech[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 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 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:21, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal City College Pacca Chang[edit]

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

Non-notable fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 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 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:21, 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 no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus FM (Ghana)[edit]

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

The radio station fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. None of the sources cited in the article discusses the radio station; as a matter of fact, the sources are not reliable. The article was speedily deleted a few weeks ago under WP:G12. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:08, 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 01:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:20, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epcot Forever[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this fireworks display. Only one possible RS but nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST: Besides the Polygon article currently in the article, there's also lots of coverage from news sources, travel magazines and Disney fan blogs:
- "After two decades and numerous awards, tonight is the final 'IllumiNations' show at Epcot", Orlando Weekly (Sept 30, 2019)
- "Why Epcot Forever music is the "soul" of Disney's new show", Orlando Business Journal (Sept 29, 2019)
- "New "Epcot Forever" Fireworks Show Debuts at Disney World", Orlando News 13 (Oct 2, 2019)
- "Pictures: Disney's new 'Epcot Forever' fireworks show", Orlando Sentinel (Oct 1, 2019)
- "‘Epcot Forever’ nighttime spectacular debuts at Walt Disney World Resort", Attractions Magazine (Oct 3, 2019)
- "Epcot Forever debuts at Walt Disney World", Theme Park Insider (Oct 1, 2019)
- "Here's What We REALLY Thought About Epcot Forever, Epcot's New Nighttime Spectacular", Theme Park Tourist (Oct 2, 2019)
- "Five Surprising Elements in Epcot Forever", Touring Plans (Oct 5, 2019)
- "REVIEW: “Epcot Forever” Bites the Fan That Feeds It", WDW News Today (Oct 2, 2019)
- "Epcot Forever Review: You Can’t Go Home Again", Disney Tourist Blog (Oct 12, 2019)
- "First Look: Scenes from Opening Night of Epcot Forever", AllEars.net (Oct 1, 2019)

I know that blogs aren't always considered reliable sources; I'm including them in this list because I think it demonstrates the level of public interest in this show. I'll add these to the article in a "Further reading" section so that people can use them to improve the article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:58, 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 01:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:20, 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 10:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Kachroo[edit]

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

A Kashmiri militant who was in the news for his death. Kashmir is a warzone and local commanders from both side do not become notable after dying, so fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Fails WP:MILPERSON as local commanders of militant organisations are not notable. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The killing of the subject is purely notable as many civilians were injured during the clashes in solidarity with him. The rest of situation have already been provided for same nomination. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Clashes with the police is a common incident on a warzone and happens on weekly (sometimes even daily) basis. Protesters and policemen/forces also get injured, So I can't see why his death is especially notable. The case of Burhan Wani was notable, but the same cannot be said for all the militant area commanders who were killed in action. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1989, hundreds of militants were killed in uprising revolt, but only a few of them were credited with historical notes and the subject in question was among those. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this death is historical. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 13:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:20, 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 10:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riyaz Naikoo[edit]

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

A Kashmiri militant who was in the news for his appointment as commander. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:MILPERSON as local area commanders of militant organisations are not notable. The article was previously deleted. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC) updated.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The organization is based on Pakistan, but they operate in Kashmir Valley which is a part of India. How doest these commanders are regarded local commander when they operate in a foreign country? The Indo-Pak relations and Kashmir Conflict are two instrumentals of the disputed region and for the subject in question. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

I meant "area commander". It doesnt matter which country they operated. Please check WP:MILPERSON to understand why we cannot have article on every regional/area commander who gets appointed. Similarly, we do not create articles on every soldier, Lieutenant, Major, colonel of Army when they are appointed as regional commanders or their death. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency in J&K was first identified in 1989 and thousands of militants were killed. In 2019, 160 terrorists were killed in one year. Did editors create articles about everyone? They know that everyone is not notable. Any small soldier or militant is a subject of notable when their presence or death has a negative effects on diplomatic relations between the two countries, or leads United Nations meeting over Kashmir after a violence caused by death of a militant. More AfD participants are needed to explain the subject's notability to help others understand. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeed Salahudeen is the Chief of the militant organization and he is notable per WP:MILPERSON. The area commanders who are basically the foot soldiers are not. Anyone who is familiar with Indo Pak conflict knows well that Pakistan issues diplomatic protests and political statements by its leaders on every incident happening in Kashmir on almost daily basis. Where is the link of UN meeting over his appointment ? --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 06:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:20, 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 no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabzar Bhat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A militant who was in the news for his death. Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:MILPERSON as area commanders of militant organisations are not notable, the chief are. Kashmir is a warzone and each local commander from both side does not become notable after dying. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC) (updated)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as were listed the last time this page was nominated for deletion. He was at least a moderately significant figure in the Kashmir conflict, his death sparked diplomatic protest, he had involvement in the 2015 Udhampur Terrorist Attack (as User:Smmurphy noted), and the sourcing is extensive (as User:Maproom pointed out). PvOberstein (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeed Salahudeen is the Chief of the militant organization and he is notable per WP:NSOLDIER. The area commanders who are basically the foot soldiers are not. Anyone who is familiar with Indo Pak conflict knows that Pakistan issues diplomatic protests and political statements by its leaders on incidents happening in Kashmir on almost daily basis. Pakistan has its reasons to portray Kashmir as disturbed to the international community. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 16:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:20, 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. Tone 09:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh Youth Congress[edit]

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

A state wing of Indian Youth Congress. The article clearly fails WP:NORG. Even, via google search it doesn't seem to me that the subject will pass our notability criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick Google search does not reveal any information significant enough to warrant an article of its own. Some non-English sources seem to have a bit of info, which if significant enough could warrant a section (or sub-section) on the Indian Youth Congress page. SerTanmay (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not display evidence of significant coverage about the branch separate from the parent organization. No contents worth merging. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Closer Hi, I like to intern for closing discussion, I interpret this consensus as Delete, and I will hold for admin to proceed with delete xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:25, 21 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 10:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Christian Democrats and of the Centre[edit]

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

it was an unknown and politically irrelevant federation, of which there is no source. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search only turned up wikipedia (it & en) as nominator says it obviously now not notable Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:06, 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 10:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wevorce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, as current sources do not satisfy WP:RS/are trivial mentions BonkHindrance (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 10 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⁺⁺ 16:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and lacking WP:RS Alpateya (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 18 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 10:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Sharma Purohit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has clearly breached WP:NPOV. It has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:RS found about her work (only 2 that even mention her), plus clearly written as WP:PROMO. SerTanmay (talk) 08:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rafi Usmani[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist from Pakistan. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like an entire listing of books by Usmani, who has no notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable scholar of Pakistan, rather the Deobandi school of thought. Passes WP:author and scholar both. He is current president of Darul Uloom Karachi. Needs reference improvements. Doesn't meet deletion.Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 22:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is much improved now and has 6 reliable references – Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune, The News International newspaper and 2 references from BBC News website. Rafi Usmani, the subject of this article, has been the Grand Mufti of Pakistan and the president of the largest religious seminary or religious institution in the city of Karachi, Pakistan – Darul Uloom Karachi. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rafi Usmani is Notable Islamic Scholar of Indian Subcontinent.belong the Scholar family and reputed in India and Pakistan also.Keep this --JUNED AHMAD NOOR (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Title of Grand Mufti of Pakistan should be enough to keep this. However, There are much more coverage on him in English and Urdu.21:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Muhammad Rafi Usmani is a well known personality. He is Grand Mufti of Pakistan (Mufti: a Muslim legal expert who is empowered to give rulings on religious matters.). Deleting such article will be a question mark on Wikipedia. --Tahir Mahmood (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin. WP:PNSD. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 18:18, 15 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. Disambiguation page was moved to this title per TenPoundHammer's suggestion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Bell[edit]

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

No sources or significant coverage. It doesn't seem notable at all, and it isn't normal to merge it into the article for the book, so I'm nominating the article for deletion. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no out-of universe notability asserted. If done, move Isaac Bell (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SerTanmay (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first thing notable is almost always a work, except when a character has appear so often in so many works that a few of the works they appear in are non-notable. Here there is no notability outside the underlying works. Wikipedia's most overabundant articles are probably on fictional characters, although by percentage we may have the most unneeded articles on fictional things, places and organizations, since those are even less likely to be notable than fictional characters. These articles also have insane longevity, like Barahir.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 13 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 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roam Research[edit]

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

Non-notable product. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the only non-WP:UGC source I could find, and a single source is not enough to pass GNG. Advice for the article writer: A Twitter hashtag is not a source. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obviously not notable. At least the article appears to be have been created with good intent by its creator though, but still, it fails WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no valid refs and no sense that this can pass GNG (either too soon or never). David notMD (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BitAIrt[edit]

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

Promotional article, no reliable sources, no evidence of notability; cited to crypto blogs, self-sources and press releases. WP:BEFORE shows zero evidence of notability per WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. PROD removed by SPA, citation and notability problems not fixed. David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is a bit promotional and uses very little secondary sources, not much, only a little popped up on a Google Search Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. SerTanmay (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find significance coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not notable. Plus, it seems to be the consensus that it's not notable. So, there's no reason to drag the deletion process out. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete For reasons stated. Dorama285 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:52, 13 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] "ఇవాంక అడిగితే ఏం చెప్తారు: కెసిఆర్ ఆమె సూటి ప్రశ్న". OneIndia (in Telugu). 28 November 2017.

[2] "Police didn't act swiftly: Mahila Congress president". The Hindu. 30 November 2019.

[3] "Telangana minister faces flak for saying no woman in Cabinet as they are at home". www.aninews.in.

[4] "Karimnagar becomes a hot seat for all political parties in Telangana once again". The New Indian Express.

[5] "Telangana minister G Jagadish Reddy faces flak for saying no woman in cabinet as 'they are at home'". Firstpost.

[6] "Mahila Congress Chief Blames State Govt | INDToday". 24 April 2019.

[7] "గర్ల్స్ హాస్టల్ పై నేరెళ్ల శారద ఆకస్మిక తనిఖీ, షాకింగ్ నిజాలు(వీడియో)". Telugu News from Andhra & Telangana – TeluguRajyam.com (in Telugu). 22 August 2018.

[8] "కేటీఆర్ చదువుకున్న మూర్ఖుడు : కాంగ్రెస్ శారద ఫైర్". Telugu News from Andhra & Telangana – TeluguRajyam.com (in Telugu). 16 August 2018.

[9] Solomon, S; Kumarasamy, N; Challacombe, SJ (April 2016). "The social impact of HIV/AIDS in India". Oral Diseases. 22: 15–18. doi:10.1111/odi.12449.

[10] Tarakeshwar, Nalini; Krishnan, A. K.; Johnson, Sethulakshmi; Solomon, Suniti; Sikkema, Kathleen; Merson, Michael (2006). "Living with HIV Infection: Perceptions of Patients with Access to Care at a Non-Governmental Organization in Chennai, India". Culture, Health & Sexuality. 8 (5): 407–421. ISSN 1369-1058.

[11] Sivaram, Sudha; Srikrishnan, Aylur Kailasom; Murgavel, Kailapuri G.; Mayer, Kenneth H.; Anand, S.; Celentano, David D.; Solomon, Suniti (2005). "An Approach to Addressing Ethical Issues in a Community-based Risk Assessment for HIV: A Case from Chennai, India". Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition. 23 (2): 165–176. ISSN 1606-0997.

[12] Kumarasamy, N.; Solomon, Suniti; Flanigan, Timothy P.; Hemalatha, R.; Thyagarajan, S. P.; Mayer, Kenneth H. (2003). "Natural History of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Disease in Southern India". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 36 (1): 79–85. ISSN 1058-4838.

[13] Kumarasamy, N; Ranganathan, K; Tappuni, AR; Challacombe, SJ (April 2016). "Suniti Solomon, Founder-Director Y.R. Gaitonde Centre for AIDS Research and Education (YRG CARE)". Oral Diseases. 22: 8–9. doi:10.1111/odi.12425.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]