Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 April	11 April >

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 speedy delete G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soborno Isaac Bari[edit]

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

This just went through AfD, but someone removed the G4 template, so here we go again. Article still doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There was some recent addition of stuff after the CSD, but I reverted it due to it being non-neutral and sourced from wholly unreliable sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Placed CSD. Just realized it was the page creator who recreated the article and he is now a banned sock. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras[edit]

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

Possible fancraft. List doesn't have third party sources in the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete the nikon article, then this article "Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras" should be deleted too. Either nominated both, or nominate neither. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow, whoops missed that. Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a product comparison service. Ajf773 (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOWTO and WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Little Lives[edit]

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

Unreleased non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at Google it does seem to have been released at least to a film festival but Im not finding any reliable sources coverage, there may be something in Screen International but couldn't access it and apart from that possibility couldn't find anything else. For example there is no listing at all at Rotten Tomatoes, so it does not pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I’ve struggled to find any reliable sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Interstellarity (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mordellistena gilvifrons[edit]

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

This article hasn't been expanded much at all. The searches I've been getting have reliable sources, but the sources talk the subject very vaguely which means it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. There are no subject-specific notability guidelines about the animal. For these reasons, I think this is a good candidate for deletion. Interstellarity (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sigh... Speedy Keep I need a template for these things. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES; accepted and described taxon, well-formed and sufficiently referenced stub, several tens of thousands of others like it in existence. Here's a couple hundred in the same genus for you to nominate. Please don't do that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:OUTCOMES Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Griffiths[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Manchester United were made for the reserve team, as laid out in the source in the article.. Beatpoet (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Norse[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Everton were made in reserve football, as laid out in the source in the article. Beatpoet (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Glass (footballer)[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 or Litster's A Record Of Pre-War Scottish League Players. The appearances listed for Arsenal were made in the Southern League, presumably for the reserve team. Beatpoet (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A life and career unfortunately cut short by fatality during war, without which the subject could very well have attained the WP:NFOOTY criteria. AllyD (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dean (footballer)[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Arsenal were made in wartime football. Beatpoet (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Robinson (footballer)[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for York City and Wolverhampton Wanderers were made in wartime football. Beatpoet (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the reviewer that approved this out of AfC. I wasn't aware of a policy involving players that played during the war league. Do you mind pointing me to that policy so I'll know to look for it next time? Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: it's WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FPL which will assist you. Giant Snowman 06:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, Yeah I know the applicable SSG, I was just trying to find where the war leagues are talked about? Were there just no fully professional Euro leagues during certain years? Because I typically just rely on the FPL list for approving out of AfC. Again, not trying to argue for a keep or anything, just need to know what to reference in the future. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - yes, in England (and many other countries) the professional system (Football League Divisions 1-4 as it was then) were suspended during the war years, and there was no professional football. Many clubs in played in the Wartime League instead, using a mix of professionals who weren't called up or were based locally and local amateurs. Giant Snowman 07:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, Hmm okay, might be useful for the project to note those years on that list. I'm sure it's abundantly apparent to those familiar with the project, however the vast majority of NPP and AfC reviewers aren't going to have that intimate knowledge of what specific years were war leagues and thus not FPL. I'll make a point of deferring or checking with the Football project when I see a player in or around these years. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll raise at WT:FPL. Giant Snowman 07:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player is not notable. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 02:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megan O'Connor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are primary, and of those that are secondary and reliable (e.g., the Time article), none discuss the subject or are not useful in determining notability (i.e., being on the Forbes 30 for 30 list is not an established claim of notability). No information exists on which to base a WP:BLP, and ostensibly this article is more about the startup of which the subject is part. Kinu ^t/_c 22:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was recently created by new student editor. Please be welcoming and cognizant of WP:BITE. TJMSmith (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GS citations WP:Too soon for WP:Prof#C1. The rest appears to be just corporate puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject had a successful PhD, and has one paper that is reasonably highly-cited, though with an especially large number of coauthors. I don't think it's enough for WP:NPROF C1. GNG looks like a better fit, but the only coverage seems to be local interest stories from local papers. She and the company may eventually become notable, for now it looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough yet. WP:NPROF Freeranging intellect (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - unusual accomplishments. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What unusual accomplishments? It doesn't link anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xiangkun (Elvis) Cao[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Some weak coverage of the FeverPhone project with which he is associated, but most of the coverage is mentions related to his listing on the Forbes 30 for 30 list, which by itself is not an established claim of notability. Some sources are primary, including Wordpress blogs and YouTube, and others are interviews and/or affiliated with the institutions at which he has studied/worked. Ultimately not enough on which to build a WP:BLP. Kinu ^t/_c 22:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this PhD student. There are a lot of references in the article, but the substantive ones are to blogs and similar, which doesn't look like a meet of GNG. 30 under 30 suggests that he may eventually be notable, but not yet. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who have not yet earned a PhD are almost never notable academics, and there is no reason to assume there might be an exception to this general rule in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, above. Perhaps once a century is a PhD student already notable. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cameras with onboard video compression[edit]

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

Possible FANCRAFT and undiscriminitant list. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Wikipedia is not a feature comparison table for choosing a webcam. Pburka (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN: not considered as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and Wikipedia is not a list of technical content which could only be suited to a very small audience. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Financial[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. A majority of the sourcing is to interviews with founders and other churnalism related to their startup and funding, but there is no in-depth coverage of the company itself. Kinu ^t/_c 19:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find is a flurry of press releases and interviews. Not notable yet, maybe just WP:TOOSOON. Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided don't support GNG/NCORP notability. Sources 2 and 3 aren't about Neo and don't discuss it more than trivially if at all; source 1 is a repackaged press release; I can't access source 4 but it does seem to also be a repackaged press release. Even if it wasn't there's not enough there. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Beake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable assistant coach in NFL Europe and NFL (as a quality control coach). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable gridiron football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Hitpoint0213 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, non-notable football coach, fails WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Lintz[edit]

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

non notable business persons with 0 reliable sources, just black hat SEO fake sites and press releases. bundled with Jordan Lintz for obvious reasons. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JSFarman (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a puff piece, and the subject is not notable.TH1980 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the article has been written with the motive of WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article includes number of credible news-related articles and most of them are covered on Wikiipedia and I do not know what Praxidicae means when he says 0 reliable sources, one of them is Associated Press almost 200 years old non-profit news agency.

Another one is Bloomberg of top news organizations and the articles are Here, Here and Here.
In Jan 2020 the Lintz Brothers were named as two of the top 10 Instagram influencers by The Post-Standard one of the major newspapers serving the greater Syracuse, New York, and the article is here.
Three articles on Forbes, Here, Here and Here, and widely covered by Yahoo! Finance. Lintz brothers meets the requirements for a WP:BIO page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MackVenus (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should read the sources you cite, MackVenus. this is clearly a press release, it doesn't matter whether God himself published it. press release, press release, this says nothing of value about either subject, a name drop about an event, which leaves you with exactly 0 independent sources and no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep! exactly what Praxidicae said. Basically a promotional piece for a non notable subject. Celestina007 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of the sources I checked were press releases or were regurgitations of press releases. In the case of AP, Yahoo Finance and Fox, they specifically state in the byline that it’s paid-for coverage. Unless anyone can find impartial sources that haven’t been paid for, there are no WP:RS to base this article on. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent coverage for notability Mallardsfan19 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Muhammad Dzukogi[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The references cited in the article are either unreliable or not independent. None of the subject's works have been discussed in reliable sources. This particular source is a wordpress source and cannot count towards notability. Being the head of a reliable organization is not enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Falls short of WP:CREATIVE & WP:GNG. Basically what nom said. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open Homes[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, every TV show is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, but must still show some evidence of media coverage about it to establish its significance -- but even on a ProQuest search for contemporaneous coverage that would not Google well because this aired 15 years ago, literally all I was able to find was its network's own press releases about its own programming, which are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing notability, and a single wire service article, which is not enough coverage to get this over the bar all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source that can be found. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was also unable to find additional sources through either the standard BEFORE searches or databases (long shot anyway). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BVT (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable company. GamerPro64 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 17:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominiator. Non-notable company. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to pass WP:GNG and it is a bad sign that the German wikipedia does not have an article about it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sayonara non-notable. -CoronaEditor (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Bukar Hassan[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:POET. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable coverage independent of her. Majority of the references cited in the article are about her mother's death. The accolades she's received are not notable. She has spoken at a TED conference and is the founder of a bunch of non-notable organizations. These things are not enough to justify stand-alone inclusion. The article is simply a promotional material written to promote the 23-year old individual. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack reliable secondary coverage showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability in any which way. Celestina007 (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chike Ukaegbu[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A highly promotional article that lacks sources and in-depth coverage. He is only known for being the youngest person to run for President of Nigeria. The references cited in the article are either interviews or about the subject's presidential bid. Per WP:BIO1E, this article should be deleted. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a promotional or advertorial platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — promotional article for a non notable entity falling short of all notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. Failed candidates are not notable. His businesses also look run of the mill. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 XFL season. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 XFL Championship Game[edit]

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

Championship game that was scheduled to happen but won't happen now, can easily merge material into 2020 XFL season. Not notable as a stand-alone article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD raises a broader issue as to how we will handle events likely to be cancelled due to the coronavirus pandemic. E.g., 2020 NCAA National Collegiate Women's Ice Hockey Tournament, 2020 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament, 2020 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament, 2020 NCAA Division I Softball Tournament, and probably dozens more. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that 2020 NBA Finals and 2020 Stanley Cup Finals have been turned into redirects. This seems like a sensible solution. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think at least the men's basketball tournament would still be notable as a stand-alone article since it received significant coverage before and during the pandemic. The 2020 XFL Championship Game has not received much coverage and likely will not receive more. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding a similar discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 AAF Championship Game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 XFL season per precedents at 2020 NBA Finals and 2020 Stanley Cup Finals. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 XFL season as only the game's location had been set at the time of the cancellation. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 XFL season#Playoffs per prior AfD precedent. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 XFL season#Playoffs per precedents and above votes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per Ejgreen77's mention of past precedent involving the AAF. @Cbl62:, this precedent has nothing to do with the NCAA article; for most of them just mentioning the reason for their cancellations in a short stub article is perfectly acceptable as they had regular season play/partial conference tournament play, along with mentions of the aborted host cities/venues. Nate • (chatter) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While NCAA men's basketball tournament may be different, since it was imminent when the quarantine was imposed, and its cancellation generated substantial media coverage, it seems to me that redirects are the logical result for most other situations referenced above including the following logical redirects:

That's my opinion, though this AfD concerns on the XFL. Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 XFL season agreeing with others opinions stated above. Jcoolbro (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirect is the right approach here. It made sense at the time it was created, but now it will make Wikipedia better to re-direct/merge articles. Need a policy? Ignore all rules fits if necessary. This one just makes sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. TheTVExpert (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever typed the words Snow redirect before, but there they are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Telly Tots Movie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, completely unsourced, written by “producer”. Kleuske (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rian Conroy Fahey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, autobiographical, unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Obvious. Ifnord (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Don't wait for AfD. WP:CHILDPROT and WP:MINORS apply. Guliolopez (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marked for CSD - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A11 Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Story Makers With You![edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, obvious WP:COI, far from neutral. Main purpose seems selfpromotion by the author. Kleuske (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zameer Naqvi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no indication of notability whatsoever, can't see any in-depth coverage of him anywhere, just routine listings and primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one reliable reference to back up the prizes claimed. Article reads like a puff piece. May be ok as a draft to start, but not as an article in mainspace. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary Party[edit]

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

Non-notable political party that sources exclusively to Instagram and google, has less than 25 members, has no elected officers, and seems to have no impact at all on anything. There does not appear to be any substantial, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was just about to do this myself. Delete per nomination. Bulbajer (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

delete and speedily, preferably. There are 0 sources about this brand new "party" Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article about a far-left party sourced by...Instagram? Caro7200 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The party has influence at state-level, I've spoken with the leader and members of the party via their social media. They've been heavily censored. MogasTheThird (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only 20 members or so, also lacking coverage in reliable sources at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonexistent significant coverage, fails WP:ORGCRIT. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has no sources other than the party's own web site and Instagram account. No indication of notability per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Top Masta[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Doesn't look like any of their music has charted. Google search for "A1 Top Masta" comes up with fewer than 100 results, which appear to music directories or ticket vendors. A search for "顶级玩家" has many more results but still nothing approaching significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. (Note that 顶级玩家 apparently translates to "top players" so there are many irrelevant results in the Google search.) ... discospinster _talk 13:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The group fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of them doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although far better as an article now, with much of the earlier nonsense removed, the fact remains that there is nothing to even suggest notability. I suspect this is either a fan page or self promo. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fifth batch of declared historic buildings in Hangzhou[edit]

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

Smells of original research--no indication based on third-party coverage, or lack thereof, that this "fifth batch", nay the fourth, third, etc. should deserve their own pages. Little encyclopedic value, more like a vanity project for user:laohangzhou (no surprises given the name!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is clearly part of a series of lists which have been broken up into smaller portions keep them manageable. The lists correspond to the "batches" in which the declarations were announced. Buildings and structures which have been declared to be historic by an authority should be presumed to be notable, and we should have lists of them in our encyclopedia. (There is room for nuance here—not all listed buildings are equally notable, but the nominator has made no such argument.) Pburka (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Gee, can't wait to see A Building at 19, Jin Chai Dai Alley and Buildings at 10, 12, 13, Zhupo Alley get its own article someday! Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote reads like a knee-jerk inclusionist reaction that just takes for granted whatever is presented. So can anyone just come along and create a random "list of historic buildings in x" and it can never be deleted?! I'm simply inviting you to look at the list and check the sourcing out while you're at it. (Deadlink?! No third-party coverage?!!) It simply doesn't pass the smell-test at all... To reiterate, I'm quite sure this OR masquerading as encyclopedic material... & all the dude (terribly fishy account if you just take a quick look) had to do wuz slap the words "historic building" & y'all just look the other way... Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't we want an article about 19 Jinchaidai Alley? Why should we assume it's any less notable than 58 Joralemon Street? If you're claiming this article is a WP:HOAX you should have said so in the nomination, and should provide evidence to support that bold claim. Pburka (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the listed buildings appear to have official, multilingual plaques installed with some didactic text and a catalog number, e.g. http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_726be0290100w0ls.html. If this is a hoax it's very sophisticated. With some legwork and language skills I expect everything on this list is verifiable. Pburka (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's probably a better way of grouping them, but lists of government-declared historic monuments are valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is certainly notable. The problem with the article is that it is entirely sourced to a single website, which is currently down. It therefore needs tagging for better references, but unless the nominator believes it’s a hoax or completely made up, I don’t see a basis for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm glad to see this list-article; there has been no organized coverage of historic sites in China so far, that I am aware of, or at least not under wp:HSITES. I just created a navigation template, {{Hangzhou declared historic buildings topnav}}, to link between the five related list-articles of historic buildings in Hangzhou, and I put it into the top of each of them. These list-articles appear to be part of a newly organized project to cover historic sites in China, which in my opinion should be part of a new WikiProject for that, which could be technically under both the China wikiproject and wp:HSITES (the Historic sites wikiproject). Like there is wp:NRHP in the United States. wp:HSITES has lots of relevant resources, including a discussion page wt:HSITES. --Doncram (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this, and the other "batch Hanzhou building" articles don't appear WP:TOOLONG, 1st batch is around 3,000 words, 2nd batch is around 1,600 words, 3rd batch is around 2,300 words, 4th batch is around 1,800 words, and 5th batch is around 1,500 words, total of 10,200 words, so they could probably all be merged into 2 articles of around 5,000 words each? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have created 19 Jinchaidai Alley as an article, so now the list at least has one link to an article, if that was anyone's concern. Additionally, as other editors have pointed out, the content itself is not unlike what is done for other cities, so Hangzhou should be no exception. Some formatting and editing could be done to improve the article, but it should certainly be kept. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 22:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pranjal Bhatt[edit]

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

This started off as me helping an editor on Wikipedia "correct" some information on the article, but when I went to find some sources to back up even the most trivial information I hit a wall. 7 GNews hits and only a few tens of thousands of Google hits. Everything seems to be either a brief mention or promo for an upcoming film. Just not seeing the notability. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't know how or why this was ever accepted, there isn't a single rs that talks about Bhatt in any detail. Praxidicae (talk)`
Delete This article was also brought on Teahouse today, the user was blocked for legal threats. No notable movie from this actor, nor can I find any detailed coverage. Cedix (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was once a major actress in the Gujarati film industry with more than 10 films with a few of them in the leading roles. She comes from an era where Gujarati films were not that mainstream and the same reasons her films don't have many mentions over the internet. Prior to 2015 Gujarati films don't have an internet presence or Wikipedia articles. See one of the most notable actors in the Gujarati industry Naresh Kanodia, none of his films has a Wikipedia article but many of them were big hits in Rural Gujarat. I accept the fact that Pranjal Bhatt has not many mentions over the internet but I am sure she must have good coverages in the print media during that time. She is also a winner of the Best actress from the Gujarat State Government in 2009. Here are a few references I could find. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/transmedia-awards-four-actresses-to-battle-it-out-for-the-best-actress-award-this-year/articleshow/46365961.cms
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/koi-ne-kesho-nahi-and-patan-thi-pakistan-the-two-films-are-in-race-for-various-awards/articleshow/30984918.cms
^ https://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/100313030159_pranjal_bhatt_got_transmedia_award.html
^ https://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/gujarat-news-samachar/news/gujarati-actress-pranjal-bhatt-was-present-in-the-karnari-area-dabhoi-1557203966.html

- The9Man ^(Talk) 20:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The9Man TOI was recently deprecated as an RS and in particular those TOI pieces you posted are why. They're published by TNN which basically just publishes press releases as journalistic pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae:, I am aware about the TOI issue. I have listed it as mentions not WP:RS. My concern I have mentioned in the comment. - The9Man ^(Talk) 04:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she was involved in a cinema complex that at the time was not getting wide attention, which is a sign of not being notable. Not every credited role adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There are certainly issues here, but would the award from her government meet WP:ANYBIO? A "redirect" could have worked here, but none of the films she has starred in have pages of their own. "Draftifying" may be another option, but I'm not sure if it would yield further sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4 No, only top level country level or state level awards are qualified for that. This does not look like a top level state award. Cedix (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cedix! Dflaw4 (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Rahman[edit]

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

It would appear Mr Rahman is a young musician from Bangladesh. This article fails any of the WP:MUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. While there appear to mentions of Zahid Rahman in Bengali language that might be considered as reliable sources, like or not, English language citations pretty much determine what is included on the English language Wikipedia. Maybe it shouldn't be? That's a discussion to made somewhere else. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The basis for the nomination is defective. We do not require English language sources to establish notability. The Bengali refs would be sufficient if they are from reliable independent sources. It looks to me like they’re not, but perhaps a Bengali speaker can let us know? Mccapra (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked Bengali refs, all 4 refs are primary (interviews) & promotional. Didn't found anything notable on internet in Bengali. Fails WP:MUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had CSD A7'd the article. Admittedly, it is a grey area if statements like "gaining fans in 11th grade" and a song being "top played" without any indication of the measure (official charts? youtube?) amount to credible claims of significance. It seems Shirt58 thought it does and chose to nominate for this AfD instead. At any rate, the sources are very much primary and of questionable reliability, therefore failing WP:GNG and also WP:MUSICIAN. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 04:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too think that it meets A7 criteria but what cannot be disputed is that the subject fails WP:GNG and also WP:MUSICIAN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

The article cites no non-primary sources. There is no indication that D&D warlords have any significance outside the game. Not a very active user (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). As one of the lesser used classes in the franchise, there is not much outside of primary sources discussing it, in either its "Marshall" or "Warlord" name. It should be important to note that while there are, at first glance, a number of sources when searching for "Warlord" in relation to D&D, these are not talking about the character class named "Warlord", but using the generic title of warlord to describe a character. The few sources actually referring to the character class are nothing more than trivial mentions. I'm fine with either straight deletion or a redirect to the main article on Character classes in general, but this should not be retained as an independent article, and there is no information from secondary sources to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma, but specifically to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. That section is the only place on the page where "warlord" is mentioned. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 04:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds right, per KarasuGamma. I base that both on my knowledge of the game and the current state of the redirect target. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've only played 3.5e and 5e, and I've never heard of this as a class. I'm happy my suggestion made sense. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. Per above comments, this article fails GNG as there are no secondary sources that provide anything more than a trivial mention of it. The article has no content worth merging. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. — Hunter Kahn 23:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Edwards[edit]

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

No evidence of substantial secondary coverage that would indicate notability. Sourced using just IMDb for more than a decade. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete short of being the director, people general do not become notable for being on the production side of filmmaking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Paul Edwards is a very common name, including a former prosecutor who doesn't have an article. An online search is hopeless. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unfortunately unable to find sources that supported notability. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leib Groner[edit]

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

Groner is mostly known as having been the secretary of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but notability is not inherited. The only reason for recent coverage is his death due to the coronavirus pandemic. Fails GNG and WP:SIGCOV on his own. — JFG ^talk 09:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — JFG ^talk 09:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also the section about his political activities. It is a small, but adds to his notability. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's been the subject of many profiles in New York Times, New York Magazine and others. Issue here is that nothing particularly recent has been quoted in the Wiki page. | MK17b | (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article also mentions that he was a lecturer. As a matter of fact, he was an avid lecturer, speaking on many occasions in locations all over the world. That is something that the article should stress more, IMHO, and add some sources about. Debresser (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that he was the secretary of the Lubavitcher Rebbe does not per definition make him notable, but on the other hand that doesn't mean that he can not be notable in his own right as being the secretary of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In this case his notability is a result of the combination of the following things, which together make the case for his notability (per WP:BASIC): 1. over 40 years being the secretary of the Lubavitcher Rebbe 2. being somebody who traveled the world during almost 25 years after the Lubavitcher Rebbe's demise, telling stories about him and in general being a lecturer on Judaism. 3. having had a certain role in various political campaigns. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from profiles mentioned earlier, Rabbinical Alliance of America's statement upon his passing described him as "one of the most prominent figures in Lubavitch of the last generation". | MK17b | (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable.

Williamsdoritios (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - notable per the above comments. 2604:2000:E010:1100:D4FE:9872:535D:AC7D (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Philip Jones[edit]

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

I can't find any independent and reliable coverage of this writer. Tacyarg (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a distainc lack of secondary sources that show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 1 (American season) houseguests[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 1) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 1 housemates, the general consensus is that pretty much every contestant is non notable, contains an undue level of biographical profiling and fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Secondly, the amalgamated list, without all of the profiling, can be found under List of Big Brother (American TV series) houseguests or List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) houseguests and links to the very few notable names can be accessed from there. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all related

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm split here:
- Delete all civilian season lists but
- Keep all celebrity season lists. ALL of the celebrities that participated in the celebrity series successfully meets WP:Lists of people by meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TheDoctorWho: These lists were created years ago as a stop-gap because the season articles were growing too big in size and they all are pretty much WP:FANCRUFT recapping what each individual did inside the House. We really don't need the celebrity lists either as they are all notable on their own and each celebrity has their own individual articles. For the celebrities their appearances and accomplishments outside of Big Brother are listed in their main articles so there really isn't a need for the individual season lists. With the consolidation of the infoboxes and every article now using the table format for the contestants lists and sections like this have become redundant. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the celebrities are notable for their fame outside of the Big Brother reality show, their individual antics are NOT, for the few that are can be expressed on their own BLP or on the series' article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I've avoid commenting on these articles because I've been "meh" on the subject but after thinking about it we don't need articles recapping what the contestants did in the game. That's what the season article is for. For a more detailed profile on each contestant with WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT readers can go to Wikia/Fandom that does a way better job than here. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and previous AfDs. And that's not to mention the BLP issues these lists have. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is a bunch of unneeded fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per arguments above, per the previous AfDs and my arguments in them. Not needed, anything notable can be mentioned in the season article; the main list of housemates article handles the list. --Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added one more article, List of Big Brother: Over the Top houseguests, to this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nominater's rationale. Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Dan arndt (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Berthe Petit. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary[edit]

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

Self-publisher Lulu.com book. Fails WP:NBOOK, created by a vanished user who seems to mostly write from the Christian perspective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the author's page. Plenty of room for it, and then preserve this page as a redirect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The author is Editor Secret of Rosary, which we do not have an article on. This is a completely non-notable book. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Berthe Petit.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Moscatel[edit]

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

Seriously questioning this meeting WP:GNG. Almost none of the sources are valid, most of the ones that aren't PR sites are guest posts/blogs by the subjects or people related to them. This also appears promotional as the claims aren't verifiable by 3rd party sources. Googling the people and their business names comes back to the same group of unreliable self created sources. JamesG5 (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly PR reliant article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in my view none of the current citations are WP:RS - most are either first person interviews, run of the mill or press releases. No evidence of any better sources to help improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inky Gibbens[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The articles cited are about the webpage, not about her in particular. Google search for "Inky Gibbens" results in fewer than 100 results, with a lot of them being sketchy sites that link to her TEDx talk. ... discospinster _talk 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After doing a BEFORE, subject of article clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Signigicant coverage in verifiable reliable secondary sources feature her in articles, for example: WIRED [1], The Economist[2],Smithsonian[3],The Times[4],RedBull[5],U of Cambridge[6],Geographical Magazine, the Magazine of the Royal Geographical Society[7],The Australian [8], and others. The article needs to be improved to reflect these sources, but should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those articles are about the software, not about her. ... discospinster _talk 21:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone. There is enough significant coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources Netherzone provides are about Tribalingual and constitute insignificant coverage of Gibbens (many of them also don't count for notability for other reasons, such as the fact that they're non-independent interviews without additional editorial content). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the sources mentioned by Netherzone: #1 is primarily about the company not about Inky, #2 does not even mention Inky, #3 is an interview (generally considered a primary source for the purpose of notability), #5 is an interview with Red Bull so come on, #6 is a primary source - "Tribalingual graduated from Cambridge Social Ventures in June 2017", #7 is primarily about the company with quotes from Inky (ie basically an interview sans independent content about her). #4 and #8 I can't access at work so no comment on those. But from what I can access, I'm not impressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Lakes Estates, California[edit]

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

This area does not pass WP:GEOLAND#2 or WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Lakes Estates, California I am also nominating the following related pages because [Neighborhoods, census tracts, etc must pass WP:GEOLAND#2] the following areas do not meet our notability requirements:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Subdivisions and housing developments without significant coverage as required. Reywas92^Talk 19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable subdivisions which do not meet GEOLAND/GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there no redirect alternatives for any of these? For one Indian Lakes, California, is the location of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, and is the namesake of the band From Indian Lakes. It jut seems to have an alternative name in the CDP than the WP:COMMONNAME. (See Talk:Yosemite Lakes Park, California for a similar difference.) Most of these seem like rural communities, which probably don't meet GNG, but if there is a good redirect to be had, that would likely be better. Yosemiter (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indian Lakes Estates, which to my knowledge is an actual established community. No comment on the rest; I presume many of them are just suburban neighborhoods or names on a map, but I don't have time to look through all of them right now. CJK09 (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Improper bundling of locations which have nothing in common other than the word "Estates" in the title, which has no real bearing on notability in and of itself. At least some of these appear to pass WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shia–Sunni relations. Tone 19:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasibi[edit]

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

WP:GNG, WP:NOTDICTIONARY AtlasDuane (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be merged somewhere? We have plenty of articles on terminology of specific ideologies. BD2412 T 03:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shia–Sunni relations. The entire content consists of a WP:DICDEF with no context and which doesn't even fully define the term. The remainder is a pair of hadiths that are completely lacking in explanation or secondary sources. It is impossible to tell from this what the term actually means or how it is used, save that one group uses it to refer to another within Islam. There is no content worth preserving through a merge and no indication that the term itself is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussaini Blood Bank[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No evidence of notability, and no real assertion of such in the article anyway. Reference is a dead link; organisation's own website doesn't seem to work. Emeraude (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emeraude, their site is working for me. see [9] --Cedix (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cedix - Yes, it's working for me now, but the only citation that appeared on the page at the time is still a dead link (or, at least, goes to the News International front page that doesn't help.) Emeraude (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emeraude, please review the sources and the article in its current form. Nannadeem has added some of them. --Cedix (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Deletion is due to a page creator who merely created the page to increase his/her edit counts without considering due deliberations of references. I have seen this and will make the page properly referenced. I could not work on it because of IP Address conflict (see my meta page). If my this edit is published I will do the job within a few days. Hussaini Blood Bank is well known medical - Health care diagnostics institution and enjoy the status at par with AKF's Fatmid Foundation for blood transfusion (collection + donation) in Karachi. Nannadeem (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Nannadeem has added more sources to the article, so it seems appropriate to get some more eyes on it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~ Based on these two links, [10] [11] this is one of the 8 registered blood banks in Pakistan. (one of the five in Karachi). Husaini Haematology and Oncology Trust seems to be another name for this org. This is the only blood bank from Pakistan with an article on Wikipedia see Category:Medical and health organisations based in Pakistan. I would prefer that this article not be deleted, with an assumption that Urdu (and other local) language media should have more coverage of this organisation. Nannadeem is looking into it.Cedix (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like the article is much-improved now by Nannadeem. All 6 references seem to work. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - now a reasonable article. Emeraude (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my comment to Keep, based on the improvements. Emeraude you may do the same. --Cedix (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had, but Keep. Emeraude (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the six sources on the page, at least three are just passing mentions of the subject and one reads like a press release. Notability is on extremely shaky ground here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Not detailed coverage in the WP:RS which can establish the notability.-- Brihaspati (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haywood-Wakefield Band[edit]

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

A search of newspapers.com did not reveal any coverage outside of the state of Nebraska and little within the state. Note that there are a lot of false positives related to the furniture company, Heywood-Wakefield Company, in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Were there ever any references used for this article? How did it survive for this long? (I could find only refs for the company Raymie referenced and an Instagram personality.) JSFarman (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long overdue nomination of an unreferenced promotional page for a local bar band. Peacock text and COPYVIO that uses same verbiage from their promotional materials. Google returns run-of-the-mill appearance announcement, but no SIG COV. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the "delete" arguments feel like borderline WP:JNN; I have discounted those. What matters is WP:GNG, which unfortunately wasn't quite written with academic topics in mind making it difficult to interpret. For example, what is a secondary source? What constitutes "independent"? The fact is that there is a lot of literature on this topic (plenty of it not by Kitaev), and I cannot make a determination as to whether they meet our requirements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Word-representable graph[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article was written by a user with no other contributions who is a name match for Sergey Kitaev, the person who coined the term. The literature cited appears to be close to 100% of the published literature, and pretty much all of it is by him and his immediate collaborators. Google finds around 60 hits for the exact term. Google Scholar finds under 50, again with little or nothing outside Kitaev and his immediate collaborators. Every point of proof in the article that seeks to establish the existence, meaning or significance of the term, is a primary reference to Kitaev. Either this is a WP:NEOLOGISM, or it is very much WP:TOOSOON. Guy (help!) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there was a discussion about the article at WikiProject Math last month; I've pulled it out of the archive here. --JBL (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's a notable topic here, it is better served by WP:TNT-ing it. The problems of this versions are too deep to keep. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two issues (1) COI and (2) TOOSOON. For the COI, what is needed is to make sure the neutrality of the article. I don’t think the fact that the article is written by the originator of the topic itself is necessary problematic and is a ground for the deletion. In fact, we should feel fortunate that he took time to write a Wikipedia article as he must be the best person to give a survey. Again, we absolutely need to watch out for biases but otherwise no need for the deletion. As for TOOSOON, it’s hard to decide; but for me, a quick Google search tells there are sufficient literature. Note some subjects like computer science develop much faster than the others (like algebraic geometry). So, it is possible that as a graph theory topic, the subject is old enough for the Wikipedia treatment (but of course, it’s Wikipedia editors to make judgements). —- Taku (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, we're not "fortunate" that someone is here to promote an idea that is not discussed by anybody else int he literature other than himself and a few co-authors. Check the literature. No paper with more than one degree of separation in the authors: avery one I have seen has at least one author who is a co-author with Kitaev. Guy (help!) 14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"No paper with more than one degree of separation in the authors: avery one I have seen has at least one author who is a co-author with Kitaev." This is not true as the article cites 9 papers not having me as a co-author. And this is not a complete list of such papers as mentioned below by TakuyaMurata. Also, "a few co-authors" not a very accurate phrase when referring to a couple of dozens of co-authors. S. Kitaev

"is not discussed by anybody else". No, that's not true. Try Google with "Word-representable graphs -Kitaev". You can find several papers that do not have Kitaev an author. E.g., [12] [13] [14]. We definitely need to keep promotors of non-notable topics from Wikipedia; as far as I can tell, I DO NOT think that's the case here. -- Taku (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, As I said, each one I checked has either Kitaev, or a Kitaev co-author, as author. Kitaev and Jones write one, Jopnes and Smith write another, but Smith without Jones does not.

"Kitaev and Jones write one, Jopnes and Smith write another, but Smith without Jones does not" This is not an accurate example. Indeed, Kitaev and Zantema write one, Zantema and Broere write another, and Broere without Zantema writes yet another. S. Kitaev
That's a non-example, since the only thing that Broere wrote about the subject not co-authored by Zantema is his master's thesis advised by Zantema. Master's theses aren't considered very reliable, and it's not quite independent of Zantema. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if nobody outside his group actually cares about it. Guy (help!) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I hinted below, in some sense, that’s what a mathematical field is like: if you are an outsider to the field, you usually don’t publish a paper on the field. “nobody outside his group actually cares about it”; many math fields are like that. Each field is a niche. —- Taku (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might be more persuaded for deletion if there is some clear agenda to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote his theory. I’m voting keep essentially because I’m not seeing that; there is already a survey article by Kitaev; he doesn’t need Wikipedia for promotion. —- Taku (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, often in mathematics, some field has strong presence of the originator of the field; many work in the field know the originator. That's just how some mathematics research go. What we need is to watch out for people trying to promote fringe topics that are really not part of math literature. -- Taku (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should be noted that beyond the strong presence of the originator, the article mentions a few dozens of researchers and key contributions of such world-leading scientists in mathematics and computer science as Gi-Sang Cheon, Ian Gent, Magnús M. Halldórsson, Vadim Lozin, Artem Pyatkin, Jeff Remmel, Akira Saito, Steve Seif, and Hans Zantema. The presence of all these people justifies the importance of the field, and the number of publications achieved so far shows that it is definitely not TOOSOON. S. Kitaev

Keep. I understand why this got Guy's hackles up, but it seems to me that this is a real topic. It is fairly new (introduced in the last 15 or so years) and Kitaev has been heavily involved in studying and promoting it (along with a varied group of coauthors), but glancing through MathSciNet I see a dozen or more papers about this topic in non-spam journals by sets of authors that do not include Kitaev. This to me is a good sign that this is an idea that has "caught on" in the community, i.e., that it passes WP:TOOSOON. (Probably I should give a COI notice that Kitaev wrote a letter of recommendation for me 10 years ago when I applied to post-docs, although we haven't had significant contact since.) --JBL (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per what I said in the WikiProject Math discussion, Not spam, but very new topic (mostly developed in the last five years) with limited literature as a result. It's not WP:FRINGE, but probably not mature or well-cited enough to be considered WP-notable as an article subject yet. Plus, almost none of the literature is independent of Kitaev in the sense that JzG mentions. Taku brings up that mathematical fields are niche, but there are varying degrees of niche-ness. In this case, it really does seem WP:TOOSOON. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the claim about "limited literature" (48 appearances in MathSciNet and 89 appearances in Google Scholar, which includes a Springer book dedicated to the subject and a couple of comprehensive survey papers). Also, the area is around for 15+ years, and more importantly, as I said above, a number of high calibre researchers (at least 10) have contributed to it, which should justify importance of the field, and the fact that many of the publications have a repeated name in them could be ignored. S. Kitaev
Those aren't numbers that indicate notability to me (keep in mind as well that those are appearances, not articles focused on the subject). Plus, most of the articles on the subject were published in the last 5 years. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A key paper in the area M.M. Halldórsson, S. Kitaev, A. Pyatkin On representable graphs, semi-transitive orientations, and the representation numbers, arXiv:0810.0310 (2008). appeared on arXiv in 2008. S. Kitaev —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with TakuyaMurata that the COI isn't really an issue (it's hard not to be neutral in math articles), and I believe that the fact that there are multiple papers on the subject indicate that it's at least notable enough not to be instantly deleted. Also, if this article really must go, I'd highly recommend it's copied to a user page. This article is decently written, and let's all remember that WP:TOOSOON expires after it's no longer too soon. – OfficialURL (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The standard of there are multiple papers on the subject would easily result in thousands of articles on really obscure topics, many of which would be incredibly WP:FRINGE. We definitely apply a higher standard than that, although this also meets a higher standard than that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point that there is a quite similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotype space. I agree with MarkH21 that the standard cannot be too low; for me, "stereotype space" is an example that, while is not a fringe and comes with multiple papers, is probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. (He and I differ only on how soon is too soon and there is no good answer.) -- Taku (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Caleb Ji, and I am an author on one of the papers on this topic (not with Kitaev), and I recommend this article for deletion. Those of you who haven't actually looked into what this field is like will be amazed at the triviality of it if you actually take the time to learn about it, which I would discourage. Having worked on it on a whim at the end of an REU, I found that this topic is not only unworthy of an REU; it would hardly be worth a high schooler's time. That being said, let me address some of the reasons others have listed for keeping this article.

A few people have argued that there seems to be sufficient literature around this topic to justify its existence on wikipedia. However, this is a combination of three phenomena: 1) the catchall nature of combinatorics, which allows for a virtually infinite number of spinoffs from any topic, 2) pressure on researchers to publish, regardless of quality, and 3) lack of sufficient motive for referees to reject a paper based on its subject alone, given that other papers in the subject already exist. The combined effect of these factors makes it possible for a single researcher to begin with a combinatorial topic, write a few papers on it and publicize it, get co-authors to help, and eventually have other people writing and submitting these papers to journals, regardless of the quality of topic itself. This is what I perceive to have occurred in this case. I think we can agree that numbers alone (which in this case aren't impressive anyway) do not necessarily justify a topic, and in this situation I am confident they do not. There is another argument that like this field, mathematical fields are all niches. However, this particular area is so devoid of content that I do not even consider it mathematics to begin with. Even if you take a very specific subfield in mathematics, there are phenomena and problems in it which make you understand that it is real math; this even occurs in combinatorics which is generally considered as somewhat separate from the major structural pillars of math. It simply does not occur here. It is nothing but a random assortment of facts which have no meaning either individually or taken together. One can make as many empty citations to other papers in graph theory or semigroup theory, but that doesn't change the fact that if you take an honest, unbiased look at it, there is simply nothing here. If there was, it would have appeared within 15 years. Finally, I would like to address the argument that there are high caliber researchers working on this. This is already partially addressed by my first point. I will not dispute whether or not the people referenced are high caliber researchers. However, the nature of combinatorial research is twofold: researchers may publish very often, and sometimes they may work on a problem just because they want to, or a colleague mentions it. Thus, if a high caliber researcher in these fields spends time on a topic I deem uninteresting, I do not think any worse of the quality of that person's research. However, I do not think any better of that field itself. - Cyclicduck Cyclicduck (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Cyclicduck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your honest comments, Caleb! I thought I'm done with contributing to this discussion, but I feel I should say something to address your rather harsh comments. I'm really confused with you placing the tag "trivial" to the topic which generalizes several graph classes (e.g. circle graphs and comparability graphs, and includes properly 3-colorable graphs) and has problems which no one would ever being able to solve. Can you call such things trivial? Or can you call pure graph theory problems and their sophisticated solutions not being "mathematics"? How did you manage to publish your results in the area in a reputable mathematical journal and a conference proceedings? Even you didn't manage to solve a particular problem in the area you set yourself, as far as I know. So, this field can be anything of what is said above, but definitely not "trivial" in any sense of this word, or not "mathematical". I suspect you haven't taken into account (or maybe even haven't ever read about?) semi-transitive orientations as your own research is focusing on pure words, a part of the theory, which is still non-trivial and belongs to combinatorics on words, a mathematical discipline! Semi-transitive orientations are one of the absolutely most beautiful and non-trivial notions I've ever dealt with in my life that links together orientations in graphs with alternations of letters in words, seemingly unrelated topics. So, I strongly disagree with your opinion on triviality of the subject, and I do believe that there is "something" in the theory. As for timing, here is an example of a Wiki article that seems to be developed at a similar level as "word-representable graphs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_pebbling even though it was originated 15 years earlier. The listed results on the page are only about three simple graph classes (though I'm sure they are not easy to prove) while my article offers a discussion over a great variety of graph classes. So, I wonder if "graph pebbling" will pass your high standards of being a "non-trivial" "mathematics" topic worth "an REU" and being present on the Wiki as opposed to the page in question. Note that what is called the "representation number of a graph" in my article (possibly less than 1/10 or so of the content on my page) has potentially an equivalent significance (and complexity of solving the problems!) as the entire content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_pebbling, although I wouldn't make any firm claims here as I might be wrong... Finally, regarding "pressure on researchers to publish, regardless of quality", for a record, I can assure you that neither I, nor the respected researchers I've mentioned above, have any pressure what so ever to publish extra papers as all of us have plenty of publications in other areas (e.g. check out my publication list http://personal.strath.ac.uk/sergey.kitaev/publications.html). So, our research in the field is driven by other factors, not the one you've assumed. Thanks again. S. Kitaev

Thanks for your response. I think I'd better clarify my comments. (and I'd like to apologize any mistakes I'm making with the format of my comments, as this is my first time editing wikipedia.) Let me first explain my use of the word "trivial". I do not claim that there are no hard problems in this area. Instead, by "trivial" I mean it lacks mathematical substance and importance. It is very easy to take a notion, or an old unsolved problem, alter one of the assumptions, and produce a whole new host of problems of varying difficulty. Sometimes this leads to serious math, but just because it can be contrived doesn't mean it is necessarily serious math. Back to the issue at hand, I totally accept graph theory as nontrivial mathematics, but not your assumption that word-representability is nontrivial as a result. If there is an important subject X, it may be possible to "generalize" it to a new subject X+Y. The worth of this generalization can be judged both by how the +Y contributes to the study of X, and the intrinsic importance of X+Y as a whole. In this case, the +Y is the notion of word-representability and graph theory (or words) is X. I do not know of any previously open problems in graph theory that have been solved using the notion of word-representability, so unless I am mistaken in this, +Y does not aid in the study of X. On the other hand, while X+Y naturally inherits problems from X, as I stated earlier, such contrivances do not immediately imply that X+Y is important. Even if different mathematicians have their own preferences, I don't think it's hard to find room for common agreement on matters like graph theory. Graph theory is ubiquitous in math and has numerous applications to all kinds of science. Therefore, even pure graph theory problems which have no immediate applicability contribute to the overall understanding of a vast subject; this is the paradigm of basic research. So if one wants to judge a new subject X+Y, it ought to have some of the same aspects itself - not just those derived from the original X. I don't see the notion and theorems in word-representability to appear in other contexts except when one constructs it by force. I have indeed browsed the literature and read surveys in the past, and I don't see these connections, eg to semi-transitive orientations, as counterexamples to my claim. These connections are simply rephrasing previously known concepts in a different way that does not shed new light on them. With regard to your question about my work, I think my previous comment adequately explains how it got published. I also took a look at the page on graph pebbling. After reflecting more on REUs, I think I was wrong to say that word-representability would be unworthy REUs; I think both it and graph pebbling could be suitable for *some* REUs. Anyway, graph pebbling does not seem to be significant either, and very possibly does not deserve a wikipedia page either. But assuming it is unsuitable, that is no reason for more unsuitable pages to be created. Regardless, the current status of mathematics on wikipedia is not a good judge for quality of the math. For example, up till a few years ago, the page on 'arithmetic geometry' did not even exist, and even now it is highly lacking. As another example, the page on 'Oka's coherence theorem' is literally one sentence and certainly deserves to be expanded. Finally, in response to my comments about "pressure to publish", it may have been a poor choice of words, but I meant to refer to the preponderance of papers and frequency of publishing of combinatorialists in comparison to the average mathematician. Assuming mathematicians are of relatively similar quality across fields, this means that one should not be surprised if some papers in combinatorics are much less significant than average, simply because of numbers.

Cyclicduck (talk)

Hi guys... The thing is as far as the notability is concerned, it is completely irrelevant whether some topic is important or not from some subjective point view; we only care if it is notable; i.e., there are nontrivial amounts of research activity on the topic. For example, some people obviously believe what pure mathematicians do is devoid of substance in the sense that it doesn’t lead to solving problems that *real* people care about. It does not mean articles on pure math topics need to be deleted. As far as the question on which topic to cover in Wikipedia, we do not care if some theories or techniques have some real importance in the real world. Should the math community or academia in general have more priorities on the quality of the papers as opposed to the quantity of them? Perhaps, but again Wikipedia is not a place for that type of discussion. If (and I stress if) mathematics or graph theory in particular has a poor quality control of research activities, Wikipedia is not a place to fix that issue.—- Taku (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. Though I am new to the policies of wikipedia, is it not reasonable that the importance of a topic should be determined based on informed points of view? Of course it shouldn't matter what people completely outside of mathematics believe when it comes to determining which articles of math are worth keeping. This isn't the situation here. You seem to wish to replace informed points of view with numbers that try to quantify the amount of research. While there is certainly a correlation, it is not what determines the notability of a mathematical topic within math, and you may end up making mistakes. I think the current situation is a prime example of this. Cyclicduck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclicduck: probably you should acquaint yourself with WP:N. Generally speaking, "I know nothing about the rules or culture here, but surely you do things in the following way" is a somewhat silly look. --JBL (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main mission of the theory of word-representable graphs (and its extensions), as I see it, is to develop ways to represent graphs in order to be able (in future) to solve (hard) problems on graphs by first transferring them to words, and then solving them on words. This is likely to find applications in, say, (robot) scheduling. Thus, we should be looking at X+Y as a whole in Caleb's argument, not trying to evaluate the value of Y by itself. The fact that we have a proper generalisation of various graph classes in the theory should be seen as a nice bi-product justifying the notability of the subject. Indeed, lots of people spent their time and resources on studying, say, circle graphs probably assuming they are notable (and there is an article on Wiki on it); even more people spent their time on studying comparability graphs probably assuming the notability of that topic (and there is an article on Wiki on it); etc, etc. Then comes the notion of a word-representable graph providing a common roof for all these seemingly unrelated subjects studied by many people (circle graphs are just 2-representable graphs while we can talk about k-representable graphs; transitive orientations are just a particular case of semi-transitive orientations, etc). How can this new subject be not notable if the smaller sub-subjects inside it (several, not just one!) are? I agree that one can generalise nearly everything in mathematics, and most of such generalisations would be useless, but this particular generalisation of SEVERAL mathematical objects does have a future and it has a motivation. So, again, the goal of the theory is not to derive new results about X by using Y to justify the existence of X+Y, even though it is not impossible. S. Kitaev

Keep. Indeed the topic developed around one central person, being involved in most of the publications. But a great number of publications appeared in refereed journals of high standard, often with respected co-authors. In a first view the concept looks quite ad hoc (as holds for many topics in discrete mathematics), but its interest has grown by finding elegant and deep results, and connections with other topics. Therefore it deserves a position in Wikipedia (H. Zantema). — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hzantema (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Delete - We have some degree of notability established here. That's important. At the same time, the nature of the particular field and this certain niche within it ought to be considered. Coming into this discussion from a previously un-involved perspective, I agree with the general principle that people should be able to edit articles directly related to themselves; it's absolutely not always true that such editing is disruptive and involves pushing certain notions. However, I think that this is a case in which we have a highly obscure topic that's on the borderline as far as "notable or not notable" goes, and in such cases it becomes natural to look at things through rose-colored glasses when you're an editor with a personal interest. I confess to possibly coming into this with a "deletionist" mindset, but I think that I can set that aside and observe fairly that the article as it is now doesn't seem either really helpful or seriously useful to readers. There's been a lot of commentary so far and a lot of points raised, but I still feel like deletion is the right call, and I expect that that's what will actually happen. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”some degree of notability established here.” yet “ the article as it is now doesn't seem either really helpful or seriously useful to readers.” As far as policies go, I don’t think that can be a deletion reason. If we were to start deleting articles based on the helpfulness or usefulness, then a vast majority of Wikipedia articles will be let go. Also, I don’t see how the article is not useful; it’s well written and is informative. Finally, “I expect that [deletion] is what will actually happen.”; what?? the consensus so far looks keep or non-consensus. —- Taku (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My name is Yelena Mandelshtam and I am an author of a paper on this subject. I have never collaborated with Kitaev. I did my research at the University of Minnesota, Duluth REU which is one of the top REUs in the country. In the years after I attended the REU, this topic has also been given to other students for work, so I think this speaks to its notability, regardless of Caleb's opinions. I don't know Caleb personally but through mutual friends I am aware that (Personal attack removed). For this reason, I would take Caleb's harshness and opinions of triviality with a grain of salt. I believe also knowing the level of scrutiny that subjects go through before being published by Springer, the fact that there is a Springer book on this subject should be enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Yelena13 (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC) — Yelena13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merger can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Middle-earth)[edit]

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

What makes Tolkien's troll notable enough for a stand-alone article? In the Tolkien Encyclopedia, they do not have a separate entry, just some mentions in passing here and there. They don't even get a dedicated paragraph in the entry on Monsters, where the book index suggests they should be discussed (page 433 if anyone cares to read it). All that entry says about them is a sentence or two about how the term is derived from Norse literature. Other than that, the article we have is pure WP:PLOT outside of the sentence or two based on concept art from the movie. I don't think this suffices, and BEFORE shows only fan PLOT-like discussions out there and likewise unreliable and trivial discussions of CGI from the movies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the Cockney accent in The Hobbit, Tolkien's trolls are just your generic model, complete with vulnerability to sunlight. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added more than 15 secondary sources, describing the origins, significance, and role of trolls in Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, with a few short quotations. I've also cut down the uncited material and cited some of the films and games (a thankless task, that last) as reliably as possible. There are many more sources available; given the enormous popular (film, game) interest in Tolkien's trolls, and the substantial scholarly interest, the subject passes WP:N with flying colours. Even the Cockney accent attracts scholarly attention, cited now in the article. I should have thought this an obvious "Keep". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have to remember that Tolkien was a scholar and his field was languages. He was well versed in Old Norse and there is no reason to believe other than that he knew trolls very well from the literature where they came from. I also feel confident that he knew well what the word means, the usage and different meanings of the word. Judging from how the sources now offered in the article is used Tolken wrote about trolls much the same way as Norse myths and fairytales do. I also base my opinion on having read Tolkien and never having found a contradiction between Norwegian writings about trolls and Tolkien's trolls.

- Possibly some of the content can be used in the article about trolls. The section about types should be removed whatever happens to the article. It seems to be rather speculative and judged from the sources there is no reason to assume that Tolkiens trolls can be sorted in any kind of types. If some of the content can be used in the troll arctice it needs to be seriously rewritten. As the article now is written it is pure unfounded speculation in the existence of troll types in Tolkiens books. Possibly a list of occurences in the books and films can be substracted from the content and included in a new section in the troll article about "occurences of trolls in Tolkiens books" or "Tolkiens trolls".

- I always like to find a way to keep the contributions if possible. To to that this article can be redirected to troll. It does not however merit a standalone article. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 16:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dyveldi - there is extensive scholarly discussion specifically of Tolkien's trolls, cited in the article; the citations do not apply to trolls-in-general, so the make Troll (Middle-earth) separately notable under WP:GNG. Tolkien knew about Norse trolls but his trolls resemble those only in part, and the uses he made of them are mostly entirely his own. On the textual classification, ~~I agree it's not ideal (it's very old and fan-crufty), and I'm happy to rewrite it~~ it's now part-deleted, part rewritten as a conventional 'Appearances', but the article's notability is not affected by bad writing, just the existence of reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" extensive scholarly discussion specifically of Tolkien's trolls". Can you quote a dedicated paragraph that is not a WP:PLOT summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A well-sourced article thanks to Chiswick Chap's improvements. There is scope for further improvement in talking about the differences between Tolkien's trolls and their roots in Norse mythology. I say that as a positive note for further development, not as a criticism of the work that Chiswick did today. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to excellent work from User:Chiswick Chap the article now has multiple secondary sources. If anything this should be Speedy Keep Lava Lamps (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several reliable secondary sources have been added to the article, demonstrating a pass of WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Troll. The main article does not seem so large that including Tolkien's trolls in it would be a problem._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tolkien had a good ruse for beating trolls – keep them arguing until the sun comes up. We should be smart enough not to fall for this endless argument trick. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a single source added demonstrates non-trivial coverage as required by GNG. Feel free to ping me if anyone proves that a single source here is actually in-depth and not a passing mentions. I doubt, however, than anyone will accept the challenge, it's much easier to say "keep, good sources" and move on. Closing admin should be wary of WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus, Andrew Davidson, Zxcvbnm, Lava Lamps, Toughpigs, Chiswick Chap, Dyveldi, and Clarityfiend: - I found this [15] on Google Scholar, but can't tell what exactly the provenance of this is. Is this a reliable source? It seems to discuss Tolkien's trolls more in-depth. If it's reliable, I can add it to the article. Hog Farm (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for linking a source. I agree the source discusses the topic in-depth (now, if we can find one more in-depth, the GNG requirement of multiple such sources will be met...). I am not sure what is the origin of this paper (I have my suspicions it started as a grad student assignment) but fortunately it is irrelevant as it was published in Bradford Lee Eden (24 September 2014). The Hobbit and Tolkien's Mythology: Essays on Revisions and Influences. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-1795-4. [16] so it is reliable. Good find! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That source (Hartley's chapter in Eden's book) was most useful, linking the trolls with Tolkien's letter #153 to Peter Hastings in which he discusses the problem of making dumb beasts speak - to a Catholic like Tolkien, that meant they'd have souls, obviously not a great idea, so he went to a lot of trouble to undo the damage he'd done in The Hobbit (resulting in the vast legendarium, and the much darker treatment of trolls in the other books). I've worked this into 'Origins'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley discusses wheather or not several of Tolkiens figures possess "soul" (Fëa). Gregory Hartley's artcle can be downloaded from academia.edu [[17]]. He is assistant professor of writing at University of Alaska profile at University of Alaska, his Linkedin profile. According to Google Scholar he has not published very much [[18]]. The article is not peer-reviewed and he is not to be considered an expert on Tolkien, the soul, trolls or Scandinavian folk beliefs. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyveldi: Playing the devil's advocate, it might have been peer reviewed for the book publication. McFarland & Company is generally considered a publisher that satisfies WP:RS I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We always need an advocate to pose questions that should be addressed.

- The book is from a conference. Google's summary is [[19]]: "At the 2013 "Celebrating The Hobbit" conference at Valparaiso University--marking the 75th anniversary of the book's publication and the first installment of Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies--two plenary papers were presented:. The celebrities at the conference seems to have been " John D. Rateliff and Verlyn Flieger. I do not think we can conclude that the contributions from non-notable participants are comparable to peer-reviewed articles.

- I have read the article several times and it seems to be based on one letter Tolkien wrote in answer to a 1954 letter from Catholic bookshop manager Peter Hasting and one short essay simply entitled “Orcs” from 1959. As said above it discusses whether or not trolls, orcs etc have a soul (fea) and is not really an arctice about Tolkiens trolls. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 08:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In The Hobbit, trolls, orcs, and even the dragon operate simply within the fairy tale register. The trolls behave like the trolls of Scandinavian literature;"

- This source seems especially appropriate: Poor Bert... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article referred to in Poor Bert... is a very good source for the article Internet troll. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - A further major source is Jennifer Eastman Attebery's "The Trolls of Fiction: Ogres or Warm Fuzzies?". It analyses Tolkien's trolls at length and in both its ancient and its modern contexts. I've added a discussion from there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attebery's article discusses trolls in fiction and uses Tolkien as one of several examples. She says "J.R.R. Tolkien's trolls in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are clearly drawn from the ogre-troll tradition, based not just upon Asbjörnsen and Moe but also upon Tolkien's own study of Icelandic mythology." The article is a good source for expanding the article about trolls and not for the article being discussed here. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chiswick Chap has greatly improved the article. It clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 14:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My compliments to Chiswick chap for his work. I like the removal of troll types and that the references is split in one section for Tolkiens books and another for the rest of the references. But the revisions to the article have not changed my mind.

- Tolkiens trolls are covered in Middle-earth_peoples#Trolls and though that section needs better references and possibly expanded with a couple of sentences, the section is quite enough about trolls in Tolkiens world. Also an article about much the same theme; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain giants was deleted 2006.

- The article as it is now is based on at few scattered examples from the text and a few mentions in publications. Hartley's article is not enough to warrant a standalone article and Attebery basically writes about trolls in fiction generally. Furthermore no one have been able to source the lead. Which still states "In this they differed from the trolls of Norse mythology, which were magical and sometimes beautiful creatures, with special skills." Which is does not have sources and I doubt very much that this is possible to give sources. Rather the contrary. The sources we have looked at states that Tolkiens trolls does not differ from Scandinavian trolls past and present. Beautiful I haven't seen anyone write about trolls. It was introduced in 2016 [[20]] and no one discovered the mistake. The rest of the lead does not reflect the realities the sources we have dicussed says. Tolkiens trolls were like the trolls he knew from Nordic literature. The article still needs to loose most of its content especially all the unsourced content. The rest needs focus and to be shortened. As this is I do not think this warrants a stand-alone article. I still think the article about trolls should be expanded to include the trolls in literature presented in this discussion. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the sources make it clear, as the article does, that Tolkien has departed considerably from Norse mythology; one only needs to consider the "bred by Sauron" theme to realize that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which can be covered with one sentence in Middle-earth_peoples#Trolls. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 18:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Did we find a second source that discusses middle-earth trolls in depth, not in a passing sentence here and there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find good sources for Troll I have also found a little about Tolkiens trolls. This could possibly be used to fix the section Middle-earth_peoples#Trolls.

- John Lindow have included about 310 words about Tolkiens trolls in his book about trolls. He is a reliable source as he is an expert on trolls among other related things.

- Rudolf Simek seems to be reliable and an expert on trolls etc who also writes about Middle Earth. He has a short section named "Trolle (trolls)" in his book Mittelerde, ISBN 978 3 406 69333 5. The section is about 530 words plus three quotes from Tolkiens books. I would not call the section an in depth discussion, but it is probably representative for what there is to say. As a comparison this discussion was more than 2000 words when I started writing.

- I also found that Rudolf Simek have written a book dedicated to trolls: Trolle: Ihre Geschichte Von Der Nordischen Mythologie Bis Zum Internet (Trolls. Their History from Norse Mythology to the Internet). A review I found here [[21]] is a, I hope, very good description of the book. The review is 4 pages. The review says that Simek discusses trolls in modern literature in chapter 9. That is Henrik Ibsen and onward. The reviewer says: "Auch Fantasy-Autoren greifen auf die westskandinavische Trollvorstellung von riesi- gen und starken Wesen zurück. Besonders J.R.R. Tolkien (1892–1973) wirkte formativ. " So this is just part of a chapter. I do not know how much space Simek have dedicated to Tolkien, but aim to find out when the paper book is delivered. In a short chapter 10 Simek diskusses how trolls is depicted in films and I assume Tolkien films are at least included.

- Clearly a lot more to say about trolls in general though. Lindow and Simek should make a good foundation along with what I found written in Norwegian, which is so much it is difficult to sort out the useful sources. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 15:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I agree the reader would benefit more from having one good article on trolls, with subsections on them in famous literature works/games, then from a bunch of mostly PLOT-filled subarticles. ~I would be fine with this ending up as a merge of the non-plot elements to the article about troll. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The improvements made clearly demonstrate the article passes WP:GNG, and additional sources identified in this AFD conversation show further potential for article improvement is possible. A good WP:HEY example. I don't think a merge to a generic troll article would be helpful because is enough content here that the resulting article would be too-Tolkien heavy, and would eventually necessitate a split into his own article anyway... — Hunter Kahn 23:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there is no gentle way to say this. This article is a random collection of short mentions scattered all over the place. The one and only "chapter" (about 2 book pages and not very deep coverage) found till now which is dedicated to tolkiens trolls only is in the book by Simek ISBN 978 3 406 69333 5. The second source identified is Lindow ISBN 9781780233307 which is around half a page and most certainly not in depth coverage. Neither of these sources used in the article. The sources used in the article are put together in a way that closely resembles WP:OR and they do not quite fit together. The article needs to be seriously cut to loose the impression of being a collection of unrelated bits an pieces. It is quite correct that this should not be merged to the troll-article. The troll-article would however benefit from being expanded with trolls in literature, illustrations and film, Tolkien and Bauer included. Why Bauer is included here I just do not understand. Bauer did not know Tolkien and it is highly unlikely that Tolkien knew Bauer or had heard of the childrens stories Bauer illustrated. The article probably should be reduced to around 20-30% of present size, but the easiest would probably be to start all over again using Simek and Lindow as a base. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 18:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyveldi: But Middle-earth stuff is cool! We need to preserve the cool side of Wikipedia by keeping a plot-full fancruft as a separate article, rather than try to improve one main article with sscholary sources. After all, scholarly sources are hard to find, but plot fancruft is what most people care about, eh? :> Anyway, WP:NOTAVOTE is rarely remembered by closing admins. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that Piotrus, as the nominator, has now posted eight times in the discussion, and Dyveldi has posted nine times. Between the two of you, you're taking up about 75% of the conversation, and now Piotrus has posted a mocking imitation of the Keep voters; I see that as an attempt to shame and intimidate us. This is the very definition of WP:BLUDGEON, and it is not considered productive. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument against removing content just because you don’t like it. It has nothing to do with WP:NPA and WP:AGF both of which seem to have been ignored by the recent deletion arguments. Lava Lamps (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus is right that Middle-earth stuff is cool! I say that it is not just cool, it is of interest to a lot of people and this makes it important to get the article right.

- I will also stress this is in no way an attempt to shame or intimidate anyone. I do however feel intimidation by the trying to think about fixing the article. I just do not know how to. I find the prospect of removing a lot of stuff intimidating.

- In many cases it works to put bits and pieces together. That is if there is a proper skeleton to begin to work from. This article have lacked a skeleton for years and the bits and pieces have not found a home.

- I'll leave this one for now and wait to see what Simeks book about trolls have to offer. That's where I'll see what should be done with the article about trolls. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 05:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article much improved, a fair number of sources identified. I'm pretty disappointed by some of the conversation above. Hartley's article is an academic paper, written by an academic, published in an edited collection (a standard genre for academic writing), published by an established academic press - and yet we have all kinds of hand-wringing to argue that this isn't really a reliable source. Is it a monograph published by OUP? No. Is it a paper in Nature? No. Does it meet our requirements for a reliable source? With bells on. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the topic is treated in a number of secondary sources. I have added another Middle-Earth encyclopedia which does have a separate one-page entry for trolls. Daranios (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foxwood, Virginia[edit]

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

Subdivision with no independent notability. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deerwood, Virginia[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Has no significant coverage. Koridas (Speak) 05:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Breitmayer[edit]

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

Has recurring roles in a few TV shows and a few movie credits, but not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As the nominator notes, the subject has had some recurring TV roles, the most prominent of which would be his role in The Middle (TV series). While it does not seem that he has had any lead roles in films, he has had a number of secondary or supporting roles in notable productions, like A Serious Man, Smosh: The Movie and The Stranger Within (1990 film) (the latter is a good TV film, by the way, starring Ricky Shroder—check it out!). I feel that this is a borderline case for WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rare recurring roles do not rise to the level of notability for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adesso SE[edit]

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

None notable IT company that fails WP:NCORP. All the sources in the article are to their own website and nothing comes up in a search except for a few trivial sources. Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal sociology[edit]

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

Insufficient notability Hawol (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article and I now see that I was a bit too optimistic about its notability. This is a tiny field of Transpersonal Studies that has shown little or no development since its beginning. The field has produced a very small amount of literature, and there is hardly any new literature. The article is based mainly on primary references, only a few of the references are secondary. I did a thorough literature search and was not able to establish any more references for this article than the few references given. I propose that the article be deleted--Hawol (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-10 ✍️ create

Keep: while the nominator/creator may well be right that the field has had little impact, that's an intrinsically difficult standard to judge, which is why whenever possible we prefer to determine notability on the basis of whether significant coverage in reliable sources exists. In this case it seems to me that such coverage does exist in the form of the 2013 special issue of the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies and the earlier Greenwood article (as well as probably the Boucouvalas article, though I'm not able to access that). As I mentioned at the article talk page, distinguishing between primary and secondary sources in articles about academic fields and disciplines is difficult and sometimes counterproductive – we're bound to cite theorists who played a pivotal role in the development of an idea, and that isn't at all the same thing as citing a band's website or a company's press releases. If there isn't a consensus to keep this it should be merged into Transpersonal#Transpersonal studies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Competition number[edit]

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

Unsourced, and content is a subset of what is already well covered by Number (sports). Recommend turn into a redirect to Number (sports). Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added seven sources to the article and additional content. There is significantly more that can be written about this subject and plenty of sources available.Trackinfo (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trackinfo: appreciate the sourcing, but how does "Competition number" differ from Number (sports)? If there's a significant difference between the two, such that they need to be covered in independent articles, it should be highlighted in the lead. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The uniform numbers discussed at length in the other article are permanent, or at least much closer to permanent. It is noteworthy when an athlete changes numbers. They are embedded in their uniforms in, particularly, team sports at all levels. In some sports, those numbers specify the position the athlete is playing or allowed to play. This article discusses the competitor numbers assigned to generally individual athletes for a specific competition. Those numbers are temporary and will change at the next competition. We could further discuss the personalized honorary numbers I added to, like the colored jerseys in the Tour de France that change from stage to stage. For example, World Athletics using gold bibs for event leaders in their Diamond League. I do question the inclusion of the Auto Racing numbers which apply to an individual sport but are permanently painted on their car doors and follow the drivers from one race to the next. Trackinfo (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trackinfo: ahhh. That helps a lot. Joe DiMaggio wore uniform number 5, as compared to Joan Benoit getting issued essentially a random competition number each time she entered a marathon. That makes sense, and we'll need to make sure it's called out in the article. I can help edit/update it in the next few days as time permits. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And please withdraw the AfD. Trackinfo (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this AfD submission, in light of the above discussion. I assume the request itself needs to be closed by an admin (?) so I'll just leave this note here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore Junction, Nebraska[edit]

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

As supported by source provided and topos, this is a railroad junction, not a community. Deprodder said "it appears to now be part of a suburb of Omaha, see the usual channel for merging this into the correct suburb" but there's nothing to merge. Again, this is a generic former railroad junction [22] [23] [24] not an unincorporated community as incorrectly claimed. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per our SNG and GNG. Fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would redirecting to an appropriate target be more helpful than outright deletion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Gilmore, Nebraska which is the associated town. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rail junction does not meet WP:GNG. As for the possibility of redirect, I would treat it like we would a numbered freeway exit: It may be appropriate to mention as part of a route description on a page about the respective railroad, but I don't think every junction, spur or siding needs its own redirect. –dlthewave ☎ 16:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gilmore, Nebraska, as it is the town that is closest. A possible search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The junction isn't particularly close to the supposed Gilmore, which itself is a problem because, in spite of the claims of the article, it doesn't appear to have any real physical trace: the topos show a yard there and nothing else. Anyway, the junction is and was always just a rail junction with nothing related around it. Mangoe (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABRU[edit]

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

None notable defunct British company that made ladders. The article only has source that's a dead link about their closer and nothing comes in a Google search except for a Japanese company with the same name. So, it fails WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Economy in Kazakhstan[edit]

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

In general, this kind of article can be expected to be structured similarly to Renewable energy in Afghanistan. It's supposed to be flat, plain, statistics about how much renewable energy a country generates, how much it could generate, and maybe a bit about the organizations that make it all happen.

This page is a substantial distance from seeing it get close to that. No other country page is styled "Green Economy in X," and none go into this level of detail about all the different initiatives a country is taking to support renewable energy. We need some WP:TNT here.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having created most of the energy law articles, I have no major problem with this one. It was created by a Peace Corps volunteer - in effect, a fan. I think ordinary editing processes can fix the verbosity. The nomination does not specific that they don't like it, or that it's an essay; please clarify. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: To quote a 2015 article by Andreas Kolbe, And this is where Wikipedia comes in: because when a country has a poor human rights record, it hurts investment. Reports appeared in 2012 that the Kazakh government was taking an active interest in Wikipedia, employing PR agencies to massage entries related to the country ("Kazakhstan: Top-Notch PR Firms Help Brighten Astana's Image", "Tinkering with Wikipedia part of Kazakh government's PR strategy?").
Also, can I introduce you to BenjaminK0, another former Peace Corps volunteer (though in Mongolia this time). This is Ben's first ever edit to Wikipedia.
I can assume good faith, and I often do, but given the Kazakh government long history of using PR firms to spur investment, I am mightily skeptical of anyone who focuses this much on the state of Kazakhstan's economy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify, it does read more like an essay than encyclopedia article (besides reeking of WP:COVERT). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any evidence at all of diffs showing covert or paid editing, please ping me. 18:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

@Bearian: Well, I have a few reasons to be suspect of this user's intent.
They were named in the original COI/N report that got the Signpost piece started. Presumably, it was for edits like this and this.
Second, we already have an article titled Renewable energy in Kazakhstan as well as articles about Kazakhstan's energy, oil and gas basins, nuclear energy, economy, environmental issues and energy policy. What motive would drive a person to create an article titled "Green Economy in Kazakhstan" besides to promote government initiatives (as essentially a WP:POVFORK)?
Finally, I can't see anyone who creates a page like this as doing anything besides using wikipedia for WP:PROMOTION. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the evidence found of COI, Propaganda, and Spamming. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article and nothing new had been said here which cannot be covered on main Kazakhstan economy article. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABCO Transportation[edit]

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

None notable company. The article only contains one source and nothing except trivial coverage comes up in a search. Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find any good sources. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A-Bomb (music)[edit]

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

None notable record label that was created by a single article editor. All the sources in the article trivial except for one. Which is an interview and therefore isn't a reliable source. Nothing comes up for them in a Google search to establish notability either. Adamant1 (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, found another trade article, but perhaps still not enough. Caro7200 (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A summary of arguments comes down to WP:SURMOUNTABLE. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotjar[edit]

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

After removing a lot of puffed-up, one-word mentions of the ocmpany used as sources, and after doing a search, I can only conclude that this is an WP:NCORP fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally removed several sources with edit summary like "One word mentions are not rrs"[25] from the article without leaving any note on the article's talk page. Can you please explain how on word mention make a source not RS? Karieol51 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page for explanation. I found three examples where you added sources that do not even remotely support the claim they are used for. This disussion is for the notability of the subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the article be deleted instead of editing it with proper sourcing. The company seems to have enough sources to confirm claims. One is: https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/Hotjar Pilot333 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and follow MOS:LISTGAP. {{Ping}} me if you have questions around that guideline. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hotjar is a popular tracker tool that is important - internet privacy concerns, what have you. I havent checked if it fails NCORP but that's irrelevant as the software itself is notable. Run a GScholar for "hotjar" - 451 hits. Run it again for "hotjar privacy concern" 44 hits. Added a link to the article MrCleanOut (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my experience, Hotjar is a big name for heatmaps, visitor recordings, user feedback etc. I've used it extensively on my sites so I have first-hand experience with the topic outside of Wikipedia. There are tutorials on it available online, which is often used for WP:SIGCOV. There are 23 pages of Google News results for the search Hotjar. A search on WorldCat also brings up 14 published books. Surely there are enough reliable sources out there to form an article with correct claims to pass WP:NCORP. Pilot333 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did that Worldcat search per your suggestion. Do you think "A Usability Analysis of a Serious Game for Teaching Stock Market Concepts in Secondary Schools" is a relevant source, or maybe "Good Practices in the Personnel Management Process"? Both were returned by the search. You also cannot see what the results are talking about. Similarly the Google search returns mostly Hotjar namechecks in a long list of companies "Session Replay Software Market Is Booming Worldwide with Top Key Players – Hotjar, Mouseflow, Inspectlet, Smartlook, Hoverowl, SessionCam..." along with lots of spammy IT promotion blogs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not claiming all those are relevant, but there's enough to work with to clean up the article. Pilot333 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because AFD is not cleanup. Hotjar has multiple in-depth coverage from reliable sources and people who uses trackers knows it very well. The topic is notable enough to have an article about it on Wikipedia. Karieol51 (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please link to the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Proponents of keeping suggest that there is material out there that can be added to support encyclopedic notability. That can be tried out in draft space. BD2412 T 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why moving to draft when the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines? If there is anything that needs to be cleaned then it can be discussed on the article's talk page. Karieol51 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reciting the number of hits found on various search engines is not the same as providing specific sources for notability. What has been demonstrated is that further searching might show that the subject is notable. Until that is done, it should go to draft space. BD2412 T 23:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Run, Virginia[edit]

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

Small subdivision consisting of a few homes; no sign of a distinct community that would meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country View, Virginia[edit]

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

Small subdivision lacks notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A K Peters[edit]

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

Version nominated for deletion. Changes have been made since nomination.

None notable book publisher that fails notability standards for companies. All the coverage of them is trivial and nothing comes up in a Google Search that establishes notability. Adamant1 (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of mathematics-related deletion discussions. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY - The9Man ^{* (Talk)} 05:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Klaus Peters started his career with Springer-Verlag, reviving the mathematics activity that had died in WW2. He represented the traditional idea of lifelong relationships of authors and publishers. However, a conflict arose as to whether the editorial department or the business operations would lead the press. When the owners went a commercial route, he left or was fired, it's not clear. He spent the rest of his life reviving and creating a sequence of publishing operations. But the trend to consolidation and purely commercial decision making prevented him multiple times from getting his presses off the ground. Now the tradition of editor-author collaboration is nearly lost. Wikipedia would do well to document this somewhere. Alice Peters is still alive, the Globe obit of Klaus is a source and the history of Springer-Verlag as a plaything for private equity firms is a disgrace. I have letters that illustrate some of this.

User:Davidbmumford 18:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbmumford (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment I've added an independent source (only one so far) and relegated self-published material to a 'further reading' section. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a keep. The references are probably there. The publishing house had a lot to do with bringing experimental mathematics to the attention of the mathematical community. I have now added a section about that. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to agree with Charles Matthews here. It is often surprisingly difficult to find information about a publisher amid everything printed by them (a challenge that arose with the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, for example). But we have good biographical sources here, enough to justify an article — and moreover, having an article enriches our bibliographies across the site, for any page that uses a source published by A K Peters. Being able to say who publishers are helps gauge the reliability of information, which is a good thing. Furthermore, there are plausible merge targets, like CRC Press, so we have alternatives to deletion and don't need to go the extreme route. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly with reorganization. The WP:NCOMPANY case is a little weak, though the Notices article is a good source, and the blog post by (subject expert) Mumford might also qualify. I think that Klaus Peters (redirects to this page) may also make WP:NPROF C8. I'm not sure how this should best be organized, but note that reversing the redirect (so that the main article is on Klaus Peters) is not indicated, as that would minimize the contributions of Alice Peters. Additional sources: AMS Obituary [26] (not independent of the other Notices article, but still), MAA Obituary [27]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as some book review sources (which don't really contribute towards notability; all serious publishers have book reviews) I added a trade-journal story about them [28] and another journal that they published. I think there's enough here for WP:GNG and that there's enough independent significance to them that a redirect to their now-parent corporation doesn't make sense (even less so a redirect to the biographies of either of the two principals). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is sufficient information for a stand-alone biographical article about Klaus Peters, I would recommend a split. There are good arguments above for retention regardless of inclusion of Peters' biographical information or not. However, there is a similar "notability divide" between Public and Private companies as has been noted between Publishers and Published works or Topic areas. I've struggled quite a bit over the years with that public/private divide and see no indication that wikipedia rules will be thawed to allow different treatment between the two. Therefore, though I and most other !voting keep for this article would like to see it included in the encyclopedia, rules is rules and I could see a closer looking at the comments and saying "sorry - nice to have isn't an inclusion criteria". We need that 2nd and 3rd notability-supporting source. Pretty sure it's out there; the one I added was from a source I'd never heard of before I found it in a Duckduckgo search, likely a nice go-to for publishers in general (Against the Grain) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at a time, but OK—there is plenty of biographical information to be found about Klaus Peters. I have added a couple of things about the company. Charles Matthews (talk)

It's also possible that the content should be moved (with redirect) to Alice and Klaus Peters, and that AK Peters should be a section in that article. I see that there are other articles on married couples who work closely together, such as that on Alan and Marilyn Bergman. See Category::Married Couples for a list. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would make sense. Redirect should be categorised. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candlewyck, Virginia[edit]

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

Subdivision stub mass-created from GNIS, fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable place with no reliable sources. Koridas (Speak) 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a subdivision which fails GEOLAND. See [29]. SportingFlyer T·C 03:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Hills, Virginia[edit]

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

Subdivision does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 03:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adastra Minerals[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Hasn't seemed to have any sources since the article was created in 2006 and nothing comes in a search except for trivial coverage of them being bought out by another company. Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Delete or redirect to First Quantum Minerals~~ where the takeover is mention (and to which I have added a source). There are passing mentions of projects and people who had been associated with this company,but I am not seeing evidence that it attained notability in its own right. The coverage identified below by Cunard indicates something worth retaining regarding America Mineral Fields' involvement in Congo. The Canadian Business article indicates an interweaving history involving America Mineral Fields/Adastra and First Quantum Minerals, which might be better covered in a topic-based article rather than company-specific article, but an enhanced version of this article could be a start. AllyD (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Nabudere, Dani Wadada (2003). "Conflict over mineral wealth: Understanding the second invasion of the DRC". In Naidoo, Sagaren; le Pere, Garth; Lawson, Noelle (eds.). The War Economy in the Democratic Republic of Congo (PDF). Braamfontein: Institute for Global Dialogue. ISBN 1-919697-63-2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Naidoo, Sagaren (2003). "Economic motivation for the DRC conflict by Sagaren Naidoo". The War Economy in the Democratic Republic of Congo (PDF). Braamfontein: Institute for Global Dialogue. ISBN 1-919697-63-2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
McNish, Jacquie (1998). The Big Score. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. p. 330. ISBN 0-385-25758-9. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Renton, David; Seddon, David; Zeilig, Leo (2007). The Congo Plunder & Resistance. London: Zed Books. pp. 181–182, 186, 196, 209. ISBN 1-84277-484-0. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
"Mining in Congo: Kolwezi tailings". The Economist. 1998-01-15. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
McClearn, Matthew (2012-06-05). "How First Quantum settled with ENRC for compensation over Congolese mine". Canadian Business. Vol. 85, no. 10. ISSN 0008-3100. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Lokongo, Antoine (June 2001). "Congo: Business as Usual? (New African Market)". New African. No. 397. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Questia Online Library.
Morais, Richard C. (1998-08-09). "Friends in high places". Forbes. Vol. 162, no. 3. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Block, Robert (1997-04-14). "Mining Firms Want a Piece Of Zaire's Vast Mineral Wealth". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Bodipo-Memba, Alejandro; Block, Robert (1998-01-09). "America Mineral Fields Sues Anglo-American Over Contract". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
"Anglo American, American Mineral End Legal Battle, Plan Joint Venture". The Wall Street Journal. 1998-06-23. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
"The Politics of mining". Finweek. 2007-11-02. ISSN 1812-4658.
Ashurst, Mark (1998-02-06). "Congo seeks to boost investor confidence". Financial Times.
Simpkins, Edward, ed. (2005-05-08). "Market miscellany". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Simpkins, Edward, ed. (2006-01-22). "Market miscellany". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Wong, Craig (2004-06-04). "Adastra Minerals' Board Dismisses First Quantum's Offer". Modern Trader. The Canadian Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Matthews, Charlotte (2005-09-01). "Adastra gets jungle fever as Congo plans flower". Business Day. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Bain, Julie (2003-09-26). "Newly listed mine group eyes Africa". Business Day. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Taylor, Ian (2003). "Conflict in Central Africa: Clandestine Networks & Regional/Global Configurations". Review of African Political Economy. 30 (95): 48. doi:10.1080/03056240308372. ISSN 0305-6244. Retrieved 2020-04-10.

Sources with quotes

Nabudere, Dani Wadada (2003). "Conflict over mineral wealth: Understanding the second invasion of the DRC". In Naidoo, Sagaren; le Pere, Garth; Lawson, Noelle (eds.). The War Economy in the Democratic Republic of Congo (PDF). Braamfontein: Institute for Global Dialogue. ISBN 1-919697-63-2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The book notes:
The second arm of the acquisition of Zairean assets by the invaders was through the state-owned mining company, Gecamines. This was handled by the American Mineral Fields (AMF), which is based in former US president Bill Clinton’s home town of Hope in Arkansas, but run from Canada. According to its prospectus: “for the acquisition and development of world-class mineral deposits.” The contract was signed mid-April, 1996 between the AMF main shareholder Jean-Raymonde Boulle who said the company strategy was “to go for the highest grades and the largest deposits” and added that Zaire was destined to become the African Chile. He described the change in Zaire as “the triumphant liberation of the people of Zaire.
AMF acquired the copper-zinc mine at Kapushi in Shaba province, which was regarded as one of prime copper-zinc mines in the world. Copper and zinc here are normally mined together. It is known that reserves in this mine stand at 22.6 million tons of copper and zinc, grading 2.1 per cent copper and 13.8 per cent zinc. To make matters even more revealing, AMF was, as we have seen above, the brainchild of Jean-Raymond Boulle, a former executive of South Africa’s De Beers Diamonds, which is the diamonds arm of the Anglo-American Corporation. Because of this, it soon turned out that AMF had acquired the Kapushi mine partly on behalf of Anglo-American Corporation. AMF soon signed an agreement with Anglo-American Corporation, which allowed it to invest up to US $100 million in any AMF ventures in Shaba province. This represented a 50 per cent equity stake in the new venture and acquisition, including the Kapushi mine itself. Anglo-American was weaving a web of interests around Zaire for the Club of Isles through these intricate “acquisitions”.One of the most interesting twists to all this was the fact that AMF had put at the disposal of Kabila its hired corporate jet during the rebellion. At the same time another company owned by Boulle himself called American Diamond Buyers, had paid US $25,000 to the Kabila forces (instead of the US $150,000 which was payable to the Mobutu treasury) to procure the first diamond trading license from the new government still-in-making.
...
Within two weeks of the deal, AMF stock had risen by 100 per cent on the New York stock exchange from about US $ 3 to $ 7 a share. Its capitalisation went up to US $ 37 billion. The report said, AMF expected the shares to go even higher “as Kabila’s government consolidates its power”. To reveal its exploits, AMF arranged a show-trip for 35 investment bankers, newsletter writers and US House of Representatives member, Cynthia McKinney, a Georgian Democrat. Indeed this high profile show-trip revealed the confidence these leading investment bankers, such as SBC Warburg and Dutsch Morgan Grenfell, ‘the biggest bank outside of Japan’, had in the new changes that had taken place in Zaire.
Naidoo, Sagaren (2003). "Economic motivation for the DRC conflict by Sagaren Naidoo". The War Economy in the Democratic Republic of Congo (PDF). Braamfontein: Institute for Global Dialogue. ISBN 1-919697-63-2. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The book notes:
... The two main new Anglo-American mining conglomerates that stood at the heart of this alliance were American Mineral Fields Inc. (AMFI) and Barrick Gold Corporation.
AMFI is based in Hope, Arkansas, and chaired by Mike McMurrough, said to be a personal friend of former US President Bill Clinton. As Nabudere notes in his chapter, AMFI directly financed the ADFL’s military campaign to remove Mobutu by, for example, putting at the disposal of Kabila its hired corporate jet. In return AMFI secured the copper-zinc mine at Kapushi in Katanga (Shaba) province, regarded as one of prime copper-zinc mines in the world, even before the AFDL captured Kinshasa. However, the relationship between the AFDL rebels and AMFI extended beyond copper and zinc to involve space technology. David Moore points out in his chapter that one of the biggest hopes when Kabila marched from the borders of Rwanda to Kinshasa was a US $ 60 billion contract to construct the orbital platform in replacement of the Russian MIR station. Although sixty countries, with many more enterprises and industries participated in the bid, the contract was awarded to AMFI. The special alloys in the composition of numerous pieces of this space contraption requires enormous quantities of rare and precious metals, such as cobalt, niobium, tungsten and coltan, all of which are present under Congolese soil.
McNish, Jacquie (1998). The Big Score. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. p. 330. ISBN 0-385-25758-9. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The book notes:
While Friedland receded from the Canadian stage, Jean-Raymond Boulle grabbed the limelight in Africa, where he was making a name for himself as an audacious mining entrepreneur. Operating from his new Vancouver-listed penny-stock company, American Mineral Fields, which was based in Hope, Arkansas, under the watchful eye of his still-faithful lieutenant, Michael McMurrough, the Hummingbird began accumulating mining rights and concessions in a number of African countries. In April 1997 he looked to have struck it rich again when his tiny company signed a $1-billion deal with Zairian rebels who were on the verge of toppling dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. Rebel leader Laurent Kabila promised Boulle the right to mine high-grade copper and cobalt tailings near the southern city of Kolwezi. To help cement the deal, Boulle put his chartered Lear jet at the rebel leader's disposal. When Kabila marched into the country's capital a month later, American Mineral Fields had scooped much larger competitors with one of the first mining contracts of the renamed Democratic Republic of Congo.
Boulle's African gamble won him laudatory profiles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Financial Times of London, while boosting American Mineral Fields' stock price to $9 a share. Six months later, however, the deal with Congo's fickle government began to unravel under pressure from larger mining companies. On January 2, 1998, the Kabila regime cancelled its contract for the Kolwezi tailings. One week later, American Mineral Fields sued South Africa's Anglo American Corp. for $3 billion (U.S.) for allegedly interfering with its Congo deal. In March, American Mineral Fields dropped the suit, and three months later, the two companies buried the hatchet and announced they would seek to jointly develop the Kolwezi project. As of July 1998, they were still negotiating with the government of Congo for the rights to do so.
Renton, David; Seddon, David; Zeilig, Leo (2007). The Congo Plunder & Resistance. London: Zed Books. pp. 181–182, 186, 196, 209. ISBN 1-84277-484-0. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The book notes on page 181:
While Mobutu might have had only token legality as president in 1996, mining companies wasted no time to meet with the rebel leader. De Beers and American Mineral Fields signed contracts with Kabila that were worth an estimated $3 billion a year.
The book notes on page 182:
Kennes is correct when he asserts that American Mineral Fields' interests were mainly speculative. By 1998, the boom was largely over, and the ambitious projects of mineral extraction had come to nothing. American Mineral Fields may have been listed on the Vancouver and Toronto stock exchanges, but it lacked sufficient capital to develop mines on its own. The logic of its own situation required it to over-advertise its role. Braeckman writes, 'what counts for the "juniors" is to play an "avant garde" role, [to] find the deposits in high risk zones where more important companies would not dare to go and then secure a contract that can be developed by more experienced companies.' The money that was given to Kabila's Alliance was made available under these conditions, and the 'juniors' expected their speculation to be followed by the involvement of more 'senior', bigger capital.
The book notes on page 186:
As for American Mineral Fields, its representatives signed three agreements totalling nearly a billion dollars for the extraction of copper and cobalt in Kolwezi, cobalt in Kipushi, and the construction of a factory for the treatment of zinc in Kipushi. 'In Kisangani, Braeckman writes, 'AMF already had acquired an office to buy diamonds, and in Lubumbashi, the company demonstrated their generosity to the rebels, who benefited by an "advance" of 51 million dollars … to finance the war still being fought and to secure a date for transactions in the future.'
The book notes on page 196:
At the time of the second war, American Mineral Fields purchased diamond concessions in the Cuango Valley along the Congolese–Angolan border from a firm of Belgian speculators. This was a familiar pattern; entrepreneurs would acquire concessions and then sell them on at increased prices to bigger players.
The book notes on page 209:
Behind the dead stood the profits of regional powers and multinationals. The current phase of plunder was often initiated by relatively small groups of speculators, who crisscrossed the Congo as Kabila's army approached the capital in 1997. There is no better example of this group than American Mineral Fields. Though listed on various stock exchanges they were in reality little more than 'adventurers' who lacked sufficient capital to invest in the concessions that were sold to them by Kabila. They were what the Congo expert Colette Braeckman has described as 'juniors', the advance guard who sought the investment and interest of bigger players.
"Mining in Congo: Kolwezi tailings". The Economist. 1998-01-15. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
LAST April, amid much publicity, Jean-Raymond Boulle, the chairman of American Mineral Fields (AMF), a small mining company listed in Canada, signed a $1 billion deal with the Zairean rebel movement led by Laurent Kabila. To cement the deal, Mr Boulle lent Mr Kabila his aeroplane, gambling that Mr Kabila would win the war against President Mobutu Sese Seko and open a treasure-trove of mineral wealth. When Mr Kabila's forces marched into the capital, Kinshasa, a month later, it looked as if Mr Boulle had indeed scooped his larger rivals. But earlier this month Congo's state mining company, Gecamines, cancelled the deal. Also under review is the huge Tenke Fungurume copper and cobalt project, said to be the largest copper deposit in the world, in which Tenke Mining, another Canadian mining company, had a joint venture with Gecamines.
The $1 billion AMF deal was to reprocess the tailings at the Kolwezi copper and cobalt mine in southern Congo. These heaps of waste are richer in metal than ore being dug out of some current mines. Using today's leaching technology, the tailings at Kolwezi could yield roughly 1.44m tonnes of copper and 275,000 tonnes of cobalt.
AMF won a tender launched in November 1995, but, at the request of South Africa's Anglo American Corporation, the bidding was reopened. Furious, Mr Boulle visited the rebel headquarters at Goma in April, judging that Mr Kabila might prefer small firms to the giants who had been close to Mr Mobutu for so long. Mr Kabila's officials studied the tender and agreed that AMF had indeed won. A deal was signed.
McClearn, Matthew (2012-06-05). "How First Quantum settled with ENRC for compensation over Congolese mine". Canadian Business. Vol. 85, no. 10. ISSN 0008-3100. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
American Mineral Fields (AMF), a small mining company, exploited this. In April 1997, just months before Kabila took Kinshasa, it signed a joint venture agreement with Kabila to exploit the tailings.
The question was how long AMF could hold on to its prize.
Not long. Kabila’s advisers warned that AMF might sell Kolwezi to a bigger company, pocketing profits that ought to wind up in government coffers. So Kabila cancelled the deal and held talks with other foreign companies to form a new consortium. That’s when First Quantum entered the picture. Then a nascent, junior mining company, it acquired a 51% stake in four tailings dumps, including two at Kolwezi. AMF was outraged. But the Congo’s mining minister brushed it off as an exceptional case.
...
Among those returning was AMF. Evidently undeterred by its earlier experience, this time it negotiated a 65% stake in Kolwezi Tailings. But First Quantum hadn’t given up, either. It bought AMF in 2006 after a protracted takeover battle, thus acquiring Kolwezi a second time. It and several partners committed to invest nearly $600 million in the project. Soon afterward, it committed $450 million to develop another Congolese mine. When completed, these mines would more than double the company’s production capacity.
Lokongo, Antoine (June 2001). "Congo: Business as Usual? (New African Market)". New African. No. 397. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Questia Online Library.
The article notes:
In March 1997, as soon as Kisangani fell to Laurent Kabila's AFDL rebel force, the mining giant, American Mineral Fields, set up an office in Goma as a contact point with Kabila.
Trading under the initials AMZ, American Mineral Fields was formed in 1995 to develop diamond interests in Brazil. It operated from Bill Clinton's home-state of Arkansas, but later shifted its focus to Congo's vast mineral resources.
The contact with Congo was made through a retired Belgian colonel, Willy Mallant, who served both Mobutu and Kabila as military advisor. AMZ succeded in winning the bid for the exploration of copper and cobalt at Tenke-Fungurume in Katanga, a concession that belonged to the state-owned Gecamines.
AMZ's victory was at the expense of the South African mining giant, Anglo American, and Belgium's Union Miniere both of which had been granted licences by Mobutu before his overthrow to mine copper and cobalt in Kasomba and Kolwezi respectively.
...
A new management team was appointed in 1999 and Belgium's Union Miniere, the world's largest refiner of cobalt and zinc, acquired 11% interest in the joint venture with the option to increase its investment to 20%.
But by revising the contracts, Kabila thus signed not only his own fate but that of the country as well. The rest is history.
Morais, Richard C. (1998-08-09). "Friends in high places". Forbes. Vol. 162, no. 3. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
The Robertson Stephens Orphan Fund, for example, was among AMF's biggest shareholders when it was first listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange in 1996. Jean Boulle guided Paul Stephens, the San Francisco firm's cofounder, on a trip through Africa around 1994, treating him to barbecued warthog and a lunch with Namibia's president.
...
Since then Boulle has gone his own way and concentrated on America Mineral Fields, which trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange, with a market capitalization of $90 million. Boulle is not an officer of AMF, but 42% of its shares are held by Luxembourg-based corporations controlled by him. Now he's trying to merge AMF into Nord Resources, an NYSE-traded mining firm in which he has a 28.5% stake.
...
Starting in May 1996, Boulle's AMF began buying the IDAS affiliate with the diamond rights, paying $2.3 million in cash and shares, plus a back-end share of profits capped at $84 million if enough diamonds are produced.
...
Suddenly Anglo American and Boulle were partners, and the suit was dropped. Tim Read, Merrill Lynch International Ltd.'s managing director of metals and mining investment banking, brokered the peace treaty: Anglo American Corp. is paying $16 million to become a 50/50 partner in AMF'S Kolwezi Tailings Project, with additional financing ready when Kabila green-lights the project with a presidential decree.
Boulle and AMF now stand to make a huge amount of money as the Democratic Republic of the Congo tries to restore the copper industry — all but shut down in the civil war. Will AMF, a small company, reap the reward because of its mining expertise? Unlikely. Most of that will be supplied by Anglo American. Jean Boulle's real contributions to the deal are his political connections and political savvy. One more foreigner exploiting Africa's desperate struggle for development and stability.
Block, Robert (1997-04-14). "Mining Firms Want a Piece Of Zaire's Vast Mineral Wealth". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
American Mineral, perhaps the most assiduous of the foreign firms currently seeking deals in Zaire, was founded in 1995 by Mike McMurrough, a land surveyor from President Clinton's home town in Arkansas, and Mr. Boulle, a mining venture capitalist. Mr. Boulle is also behind Diamond Fields Resources, a Canadian firm that discovered Voisey Bay, a Canadian mineral find with 150 million tons of proven copper and cobalt reserves.
...
American Mineral had already acquired zinc concessions on the Zambian side of the border and saw the Kipushi zinc mine on the Zairian side as an addition that would enhance the company's clout over world zinc production. The zinc plan furthered another goal: One byproduct of zinc smelting is sulfuric acid, a key ingredient in processing copper. "With Kipushi, we hold the key to reopening the copper belt of southern Africa," Mr. Boulle says.
...
American Mineral's presence is already having an impact on its international rivals. The rebels recently seized a shipment of diamonds in the city of Mbuji Mayi, in the diamond-producing province of eastern Kasai. The diamonds, which had been bound for De Beers, were offered to Mr. Boulle by the rebels. Worried that it was about to lose its grip on Zaire's diamond industry, De Beers flew up a team of representatives to Goma Friday to negotiate with the rebel government.
Bodipo-Memba, Alejandro; Block, Robert (1998-01-09). "America Mineral Fields Sues Anglo-American Over Contract". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
America Mineral Fields Inc. sued Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa and affiliated companies in Texas state court in Dallas, seeking $3 billion in actual and punitive damages.
The Hope, Ark., mining company contends that Anglo-American engaged in "tortious interference" with a lucrative mining contract in the Congo, formerly Zaire, causing that nation to terminate the contract. America Mineral alleges that Anglo-American undermined its April 1997 contract to explore and develop the Kolwezi copper and cobalt metals-tailings project in the Congo's Katanga province. Anglo-American, through a spokesman, denied the allegations.
"Anglo American, American Mineral End Legal Battle, Plan Joint Venture". The Wall Street Journal. 1998-06-23. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
South Africa's Anglo American Corp. said Tuesday it has ended a bitter legal dispute with U.S. mining group American Mineral Fields Inc. over control of the Kolewzi copper-and-cobalt metal-tailings project in Congo.
...
In January, American Mineral filed a lawsuit in a Dallas court seeking $3 billion in actual and punitive damages and accusing Anglo of lobbying the government of Laurent-Desire Kabila to revoke an agreement signed in April 1997 giving the U.S. miner 51% of the Kolwezi property. American Mineral's agreement with Congo called for it to pay $85 million for the project and between $250 million and $300 million to build the plant. The Kolwezi project is expected to yield about 6,000 tons of cobalt and 50,000 tons of copper a year.
"The Politics of mining". Finweek. 2007-11-02. ISSN 1812-4658.
The article notes:
Defunct mining company American Mineral Fields gained profile in the late Nineties. Its claim to fame? It had the rights to develop highly prospective copper and cobalt fields in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Katanga province. But that was before the five-year civil war that rubbed out any chance it had of ever realising the metals from the deposit and continues to haunt current incumbents in the DRC.
Ashurst, Mark (1998-02-06). "Congo seeks to boost investor confidence". Financial Times.
The article notes:
Officials from the Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, yesterday launched a counter-offensive to salvage investor confidence in the mineral-rich country.
The move follows a damaging dispute with American Mineral Fields (AMF) , a Toronto-listed mining group which signed agreements with rebel leaders during last year's civil war.
...
His comments follow a decision last month to cancel a $1bn agreement for AMF to develop a copper tailings project at Kolwezi,in Katanga province. AMF has blamed Anglo American , South Africa's biggest company, for interfering in its dealings with Gecamines and the Congo government.
Last month, the Dallas-headquartered company began legal action against the South African group in a Texan court. AMF is claiming damages of $3bn for "lost opportunity" from Anglo and its sister companies, De Beers and Minorco.
Simpkins, Edward, ed. (2005-05-08). "Market miscellany". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
Shares in Adastra Minerals (80p) have come off their all-time high of 97p in March and are looking good - the company is finalising a feasibility study to raise finance to build the world's largest cobalt mine.
Adastra's Kolwezi cobalt and copper project is the world's largest surface cobalt resource. When the mine is up and running, it is expected to be one of the Democratic Republic of Congo's largest foreign currency earners.
The company is close to agreeing a $340m (£179) project finance package, backed by an offtake agreement for the 5,500 tonnes per year of cobalt and 30,000 tonnes per year of copper it plans to produce. With demand for cobalt, which is used in modern batteries for mobile gadgets, growing fast, the shares are a buy.
Simpkins, Edward, ed. (2006-01-22). "Market miscellany". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
In May last year we recommended buying shares in Adastra Minerals (120p) when they stood at 80p, so readers who took our advice are sitting on a profit of 37.5 per cent.
The company owns the world's largest cobalt and copper surface resource at Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The resource is in the form of waste material from former mining activity which now fills several valleys and is expected to produce 5,500 tonnes per year of cobalt and 30,000 tonnes of copper.
Last week Adastra received a hostile all-share bid from First Quantum, the London-based copper miner active in Zambia and the DRC. First Quantum argues that as a local operator it already has the skills, equipment and capital in place to bring the project into production cheaply, quickly and efficiently.
First Quantum now has an established track record, and those who followed our advice to buy shares in the company at 206p in March 2003 are enjoying an amazing uplift of 800 per cent - the shares closed at £18.50 on Friday. Adastra shareholders should accept the offer.
Wong, Craig (2004-06-04). "Adastra Minerals' Board Dismisses First Quantum's Offer". Modern Trader. The Canadian Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
Adastra Minerals Inc. rejected an hostile takeover offer from First Quantum Minerals Ltd. on Tuesday, calling the all-stock offer too low and "opportunistic."
...
UBS analyst Tony Lesiak noted that Adastra's key Kolwezi copper and cobalt project as well as the company's Kipushi copper and zinc mine are well endowed and in First Quantum's backyard.
Matthews, Charlotte (2005-09-01). "Adastra gets jungle fever as Congo plans flower". Business Day. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
COPPER and cobalt company Adastra Minerals’ $300m Kolwezi cobalt and copper tailings deposit in Democratic Republic of Congo is attracting a high level of interest from South African financiers.
...
Management of Adastra, a junior mining group, has been knocking on banks’ doors for years and has been careful to "underpromise and overdeliver", Pryor says. Obviously, hitches arise in a project of this nature but Adastra has been pragmatic in its predictions, he says.
...
Around Kolwezi, Adastra’s project enjoys good rail, power and water infrastructure.
To date, Adastra has secured equity participation in the Kolwezi project from the International Finance Corporation, an arm of the World Bank, which has taken a 7,5% stake, and from SA’s Industrial Development Corporation, which has taken 10%.
Bain, Julie (2003-09-26). "Newly listed mine group eyes Africa". Business Day. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
AMERICA Mineral Fields, which has projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola, listed on London’s Alternative Investment Market yesterday as it moved to build up its British and European investor base.
The secondary listing took place yesterday afternoon at a listing price of 55,5p.
America Mineral Fields said it had raised $15m in an open offer on the Toronto stock exchange, where the company had it primary listing.
The money raised through the open offer, which the company said attracted 12 institutional investors, many based in the UK and Europe, will be used to carry out a feasibility study at two tailings dams at the Kolwezi copper and cobalt project in the Congo.
Taylor, Ian (2003). "Conflict in Central Africa: Clandestine Networks & Regional/Global Configurations". Review of African Political Economy. 30 (95): 48. doi:10.1080/03056240308372. ISSN 0305-6244. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The article notes:
Indeed, Kabila’s interactions with outside business interests and the history of such interactions are a compelling part of the story regarding the rise and demise of Kabila senior and a precautionary tale for Kabila junior. Kabila renewed mining concessions to international companies even before the end of the civil war and his formal accession to the presidency of the ‘Democratic Republic of the Congo’. One of the first major deals signed was with American Mineral Fields (AMF) – a $1 billion agreement for AMF to mine copper, cobalt and zinc. AMF is an intriguing example of an international interlocutor in the Congo war which has links with the very top of Washington’s political elites. Whilst it was involved in the DRC its headquarters were in Hope, Arkansas – Clinton’s hometown. Its senior stockholders comprised veteran political friends of Clinton (Morais, 1998:50). The link between this influential company and American foreign policy in the region is important. According to Madsen, testifying on the war in the DRC before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the United States House of Representatives:
America Mineral Fields directly benefited from America’s initial covert military and intelligence support for Kabila. It is my observation that America’s early support for Kabila, which was aided and abetted by U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda, had less to do with getting rid of the Mobutu regime than it had to do with opening up Congo’s vast mineral riches to North American-based and influenced mining companies (Madsen, 2001:7).

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Adastra Minerals (formerly American Mineral Fields) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adastra Minerals was known previously as American Mineral Fields, Inc. (AMFI). It played a role in overthrowing Zaire's leader, Mobutu Sese Seko. From a 2003 book published by Institute for Global Dialogue, "As Nabudere notes in his chapter, AMFI directly financed the ADFL's military campaign to remove Mobutu by, for example, putting at the disposal of Kabila its hired corporate jet. In return AMFI secured the copper-zinc mine at Kapushi in Katanga (Shaba) province, regarded as one of prime copper-zinc mines in the world, even before the AFDL captured Kinshasa."
Author and journalist Colette Braeckman wrote in a French-language book published by Fayard (the translation is from the Zed Books book), "'AMF already had acquired an office to buy diamonds, and in Lubumbashi, the company demonstrated their generosity to the rebels, who benefited by an "advance" of 51 million dollars … to finance the war still being fought and to secure a date for transactions in the future."
In 1998, The Wall Street Journal called the company "perhaps the most assiduous of the foreign firms currently seeking deals in Zaire".
A 2006 article in The Daily Telegraph said that Adastra Minerals "own[ed] the world's largest cobalt and copper surface resource at Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo".
The company received substantial analysis in a 2007 Zed Books book: "Behind the dead stood the profits of regional powers and multinationals. The current phase of plunder was often initiated by relatively small groups of speculators, who crisscrossed the Congo as Kabila's army approached the capital in 1997. There is no better example of this group than American Mineral Fields. Though listed on various stock exchanges they were in reality little more than 'adventurers' who lacked sufficient capital to invest in the concessions that were sold to them by Kabila. They were what the Congo expert Colette Braeckman has described as 'juniors', the advance guard who sought the investment and interest of bigger players."
The company has received significant coverage in international sources in Canada, South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom: Canadian Business, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, Finweek, Forbes, New African, and The Wall Street Journal.
Cunard (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I think Cunard has proven without any possible doubt this is a notable company, and has gotten ample coverage to prove it. Dream Focus 13:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the excellent research collected above. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the overwhelming amount of sources provided by the voters, I would be fine withdrawing the AfD. Although, I'm not sure what the process is to do so. That said, if they are only notable for what they did as American Mineral Fields, Inc. (which is how it seems) then the article should be under the title of "American Mineral Fields, Inc." and this article should be forwarded to there or something IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Circle, Virginia[edit]

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

One of many subdivisions in and around Charlottesville. Fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ballard Woods, Virginia[edit]

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

Small subdivision fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor, Albemarle County, Virginia[edit]

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

Small subdivision consisting of a single street, no sign of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westover Hills, Virginia[edit]

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

Subdivision with no sign of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate, Albemarle County, Virginia[edit]

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

Non-notable apartment complex. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riverrun, Virginia[edit]

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

Yet another Charlottesville subdivision. Fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rockbrook, Virginia[edit]

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

Google Maps shows a "Rockbrook" neighborhood 1/4 mile Northeast of here; no sign of a distinct or notable community at either location. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parkview, Virginia[edit]

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

Small subdivision fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Terrace, Virginia[edit]

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

Neighborhood or subdivision, no sign of independent notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete non-notable GNIS-only location. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Meadows, Albemarle County, Virginia[edit]

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

Apartment complex with no sign of being an "unincorporated community" or meeting GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apartment complexes are rarely notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evaristo de Miranda[edit]

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

Using google translate, it appears the references either make minor mentions, no mention, or are blogs. This is a self-promotion page created by the subject. v/r - T P 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the above, many of the links are broken and do not point to any logical destination to enable repairing the broken links. It is plausible but not certain that many of the links are basically just an inadvertent WP:REFBOMBING (e.g. using fake sources) in an attempt to make the article appear to be thoroughly sourced when in fact it is not. Michepman (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having removed the guy's entire oeuvre per WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY only makes the non-notability even more apparent, I'm afraid. ——SN 54129 09:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of satisfying WP:GNG or a specific criterion such as WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Not-so-thinly-veiled self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfields Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

I tried to find some independent and reliable references about this school, but failed to get any. Nominating it for deletion as a complete reference less article. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I am withdrawing this AfD, seeing that Pharaoh of the Wizards has provided enough resources and improved the article anyway. As he has stated, the title of the article is wrong, this be concerned. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 02:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this does not qualify for a speedy keep because other editors have opined to delete this article. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. No evidence of notability. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article name is wrong it is Greenfields Public School, Dilshad Garden not Greenfields Senior Secondary School.There is coverage particularly in the Hindustan Times.It was established in 1966 and affiliated to CBSE with 5100 students.Have added references.

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

References

^ "Greenfields students attend D'dun camp". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 1 April 2020.
^ "Teachers' Day : 'With you, learning is a pleasure'". Hindustan Times. 1 April 2020.
^ "Guruvani: 'A teacher should dispel darkness'". Hindustan Times. 21 October 2019.
^ Details OF SCHOOL AFFILIATED TO Central Board of Secondary Education
^ "Indus Valley Public School Noida chairman bags excellence award". Hindustan Times. 21 October 2019.
^ Must For Mums: Delhi, 3/E
^ "Greenfields Public School wins Youth Parliament Contest for Delhi schools". Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. 21 January 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2020.

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SCHOOLS, does not seems notable in any sense. Also see WP:DIRECTORY. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been no comment on the references provided so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references seem fuly adequate. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Master Trader[edit]

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

Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Unable to find further sources. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same case as Cosmic Trader, where only Ares Magazine gave it a significant coverage, making it a fail of WP:GNG which requires multiple of those. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've noticed this article creator's tendencies to just create new video game articles with a single review and some minor gameplay info taken from places like MobyGames. I don't see how this article is notable, it easily fails the notability criteria and I couldn't find much else regarding this. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 03:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Trader[edit]

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

Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Unable to find further sources that are reliable. ~riley (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail WP:GNG. While I will note that the 1980s probably makes the finding of sourcing difficult, it does not eliminate the need for it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ares Magazine Issue 12 [30] is sadly the only coverage of the game I could find. It simply doesn't meet WP:GNG (multiple significant coverage in reliable sources). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shakeel Bin Afzal[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. References provided are not reliable (and predominantly social media sites), and WP:BEFORE finds nothing substantive to build a WP:BLP. An essentially identical draft at Draft:Shakeel Bin Afzal was rejected, and this article appears to have been created to circumvent the process. Kinu ^t/_c 00:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 03:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tchoumi Houmi Elvis[edit]

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

There is no evidence of any significant coverage to show any sort of notability. A quick Google search of the person’s name shows no reliable sources showing any real coverage. EsotericJoe (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elf (Middle-earth)#Sundering. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calaquendi[edit]

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

The coverage I can find of this group is limited to the scope of the Sundering of the Elves. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of coverage of this term itself in secondary sources, most of what I can find uses Calaquendi incidentally in mentions of various things the Elves did. I don't have access to many secondary print sources about Tolkien's works, although David Day's Tolkien: An Illustrated Atlas, which I do have a copy of, does not seem to mention this. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if it turns out Tom Shippey or another major Tolkien scholar gave this coverage. However, I can't find the sort of coverage that would warrant a stand-alone article - it's all about the Sundering of the Elves. Again, if I'm missing something, willing to withdraw this. Hog Farm (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge. In the Tolkien Encyclopedia, the entry on Elves is followed by "ELVES: KINDREDS AND MIGRATIONS by Matthew T. Dickerson (I find it strange that there are three sections on elves, the third one is called ELVES: REINCARNATION; confusing layout if you ask me). Anyway, Dickerson has a subsection on "Overview: Calaquendi and Moriquendi" but that section is low quality - almost entirely descriptive. The topic, despite being in the section subtitle, is mentioned only in a single sentence ". Those who complete the journey are known as the Calaquendi, or ‘‘Elves of the Light,’’" and then twice in passing. I totally agree this topic has no stand-alone notability, and a redirect (merge?) to Sundering of the Elves is a good idea. (Whether that topic is notable that's another discussion; I'll note here that TE does not have an entry of this topic and the very phrase "sundering of the Elves" is mentioned only one in the entire volume (as "sundering of the Elvish people", if we want to be precise...)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sundering of the Elves. The article contains only primary sources, so no sign of a GNG source there. Doing a search through Google Scholar, I could find only one source than provides coverage that is not in-universe and not in passing, this:[31] which primarily does not use the name Calaquendi to describe the race, instead using the word ljosalfar. All other sources I could access were either passing mentions or were in-universe information, and therefore this topic does not pass GNG. Since the secondary source provided is not in the article, and the article itself consists entirely of in-universe information, a Merge is not appropriate here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sundering of the Elves I found no indication that the Calaquendi have been seriously studied. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I now support Chiswick Chap's idea. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elf (Middle-earth)#Sundering. There are mentions in scholarly sources, but the upshot is that Tolkien was playing about with his Elvish languages and wanted a world for them, so divided and subdivided his Elves to match the linguistic shifts and (ho, ho) to explain the Light and Dark Elves of Norse mythology. We can say all that in the Elf article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social challenges and support systems[edit]

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

This article went through an informal peer review process, as can be seen on its talk page, but the participants apparently did not notice that the article does not function as an encyclopedic topic. It is full of original research and presented in the form of a personal essay that devolves into a promotion for the organizations listed at the end, with no explanation of how particular ones were chosen. Coatracking is possibly an issue as well. All of these are reflected in the vague and unspecific title. Some of the research in the article could possibly be merged to various organization articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm certain that the topics Social challenges [for LGBT+ youth] and Support systems [for LGBT+ youth] each meet notability guidelines; however, I'm not sure if the article as it exists serves an encyclopediac purpose. It reads as a WP:OR synthesis essay of the two topics that doesn't provide any depth to either. Maybe move the article to Social challenges of LGBT+ youth (or related title) or merge into LGBT youth vulnerability and remove the content related to support systems? As it stands, the content on support systems amounts to little more than listing organizations that help LGBT+ youth. userdude 20:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this has been split from LGBT parenting, indeed the article creator's 1st edit on this said "Copied text from LGBT parenting article to begin to make edits", why? that article is not too long so not sure why this ocurred. ps. have added LGBT youth vulnerability to its "see also" section. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:NOTESSAY. The so-called peer review is just from other WP:Student editors. I've seen those before and they often just rubber-stamp their classmates' work without any heed for what is encyclopedic. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that one of the reviewers, User:Puujavesi, is an instructor. userdude 03:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An essay, not an article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 00:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be an excerpt from an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If this content belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it wouldn't be under this title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/transmedia-awards-four-actresses-to-battle-it-out-for-the-best-actress-award-this-year/articleshow/46365961.cms

[2] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/koi-ne-kesho-nahi-and-patan-thi-pakistan-the-two-films-are-in-race-for-various-awards/articleshow/30984918.cms

[3] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/100313030159_pranjal_bhatt_got_transmedia_award.html

[4] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/gujarat-news-samachar/news/gujarati-actress-pranjal-bhatt-was-present-in-the-karnari-area-dabhoi-1557203966.html

[5] "Greenfields students attend D'dun camp". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 1 April 2020.

[6] "Teachers' Day : 'With you, learning is a pleasure'". Hindustan Times. 1 April 2020.

[7] "Guruvani: 'A teacher should dispel darkness'". Hindustan Times. 21 October 2019.

[8] Details OF SCHOOL AFFILIATED TO Central Board of Secondary Education

[9] "Indus Valley Public School Noida chairman bags excellence award". Hindustan Times. 21 October 2019.

[10] Must For Mums: Delhi, 3/E

[11] "Greenfields Public School wins Youth Parliament Contest for Delhi schools". Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. 21 January 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]