Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 February 16 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nana aba Duncan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for radio broadcasters. As always, every radio personality is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- notability for radio broadcasters requires things like winning significant awards, or at least being the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in sources independent of herself, to clear WP:GNG. But none of the seven footnotes here represent what's required: two are from her own employer, and thus aren't independent of her for the purposes of establishing her notability; two are from WordPress blogs that aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources at all; one is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a primary source press release from a directly affiliated organization; one briefly mentions her name as having modelled for a photograph in a community art show, in a source that's otherwise about that art show and not about her. And the only one that actually passes all of those tests, by being all of "independent of her", "genuinely about her" and "from a real notability-assisting media outlet", is still just a 76-word blurb -- so that source isn't substantive enough to get her over GNG all by itself either, if it's the only GNG-worthy source that can be shown.
To be clear, this is not an "I've never heard of her" argument, because I have heard of her -- in fact, I live in Toronto and listen almost exclusively to CBC radio, so I literally wake up to her every weekend -- but the notability test for people is the quality and depth and range and independence of the sources that can be provided to support the article, and these just aren't the sources that would get her over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Everything outlined above is a case study in the structural and systemic issues that prevent equitable representation of BIPOC on Wikipedia. Nominating the page for deletion based a black and white interpretation of a guideline - during Black History Month, no less - is a misguided and overly pedantic interpretation of notability requirements. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hosting a provincewide radio show is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have reliable source coverage, in unaffiliated media outlets other than her own employer, about her work as host of a radio show. She would have to host a national show, heard literally coast to coast from Vancouver to St. John's, before she had a chance to be considered "inherently" notable — and even then, she would still have to show some evidence of media coverage from sources other than her own employer — but anything less than that lives or dies on the quality of her sourceability, not just on stating that she has a job and sourcing the fact to her own employer's own self-published website. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As important as it is to improve our coverage of people of colour and women, we do not do so by waiving our notability and reliable sourcing rules so that members of minority groups get into Wikipedia on weak quality sourcing, while only white men have to actually meet any of our stated notability standards. We do so by identifying the women and people of colour who do meet our existing notability standards and are getting overlooked, not by waiving the notability standards so that only white men actually have to meet them at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Saying that the CBC article isn't a notability-supporting source because she works for the CBC seems a bit unfair, essentially penalizing her for working for a broadcaster. Both LocalLove and byblacks are blogs, but they both have editorial teams, and byblacks is funded by a grant from the government of Canada. Hosting an event at the Toronto International Festival of Authors also suggests that Duncan is well-known as a broadcaster in Toronto. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcasters who work for the CBC are not "penalized" by the fact that self-published content from their own employer is not clinching of notability — many CBC employees have no problem showing outside coverage from sources other than their own employer. Matt Galloway has independent coverage, Anna Maria Tremonti has independent coverage, Carol Off has independent coverage, Ian Hanomansing has independent coverage, Rosemary Barton has independent coverage, and on and so forth. But a broadcaster who cannot show independent coverage is not deemed notable just because their own employer "covered" them internally — if content self-published by a person's own employer were all it took to establish their encyclopedic notability, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who ever worked for any radio or television station at all, because every radio and television personality always has a staff profile on their own employer's self-published website. And if that were how notability worked in any other field either, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who has a social media profile on Facebook or Instagram or LinkedIn. Notability for all people is always determined by the extent to which sources that don't have a vested interest in the person's career have chosen to invest their editorial resources into creating and publishing unaffiliated content about the person's career accomplishments. It's the same way it works for newspaper journalists: a Toronto Star journalist is not notable on the basis of content published by the Toronto Star itself, but probably is notable if the same accomplishment leads to a story in The Globe and Mail or the Ottawa Citizen.
And blogs are not accorded special status as "reliable sources" just because they got a government publishing grant — the definition of a reliable source is not where the money came from, it's how much established status the thing does or doesn't have as a media outlet. And hosting an event at a local festival doesn't establish notability either — the notability test for broadcasters is not "well-known in her own city", but requires a nationalized profile, national awards and/or reliable source coverage in real media outlets. And furthermore, if you have to rely on the Festival of Authors' own self-published website for the claim that she hosted an event, then that automatically isn't an article-clinching notability claim either — nothing you can say about any person, regardless of their occupation, ever constitutes a valid notability claim until you can reference it to sources that are fully independent of the claim being made. If you have to cite a directly affiliated organization or company's own self-published content to support the claim, because independent coverage of the claim in unaffiliated sources does not exist, then by definition it's not an article-clinching notability claim — nothing is ever a notability claim until unaffiliated media outlets have been motivated to write and publish independent journalism about it.
And also, a source has to have her as its subject, not just briefly mention her name one time in the process of being fundamentally about a subject other than her, before it helps to support her notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: Not the first time Bearcat wouldn't count a reputable blog with editorial oversight as GNG support just for being a blog. ミラP 02:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Bearcat is correct that blogs do not count as reliable sources for establishing notability. A blog is not automatically "reputable" just because it has "editorial oversight" — even garbage sources like Breitbart and The Blaze have editorial chains of command, but that doesn't inherently prove that they're "trustworthy" or notability-supporting sources. The definition of a "reliable source" is not just the ability to locate the real names of one or more people who are associated with it — it is a question of whether the outlet in question has an established reputation as a trustworthy media outlet or not. And because websites sometimes can and do go out of business, and weblinks actually do die, the definition of a reliable source also requires the permanent ongoing ability to recover the source, from library microfilms or an archiving database like ProQuest or newspapers.com, if the existing weblink ever dies. If you cannot be 100 per cent certain that even if the website permanently died tomorrow, its content would still be recoverable forever, then it is automatically not a notability-making source in and of itself — the very definition of a reliable source requires that there be some form of offsite paper or database backup that can be accessed separately from the publication's current web presence, so that the content remains verifiable in perpetuity, regardless of what might happen to the publication's current web presence. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: No problem! Both byblacks and Local Love are archived by the Internet Archive. In fact, there's a bot running on English Wikipedia that automatically notifies the Internet Archive when a new external link is added, so the Wayback Machine can make sure to crawl and save it. So that's okay about the in perpetuity thing. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Archived in a different format — because firstly, what happens if the Internet Archive also dies, and secondly, the Internet Archive also "archives" unreliable source webhits just as readily as reliable ones, so it proves nothing about a source's reliability at all. Allow me to rephrase myself: there's no such thing as any reliable source that doesn't have some form of publicly accessible paper or microfilm backup that can be accessed off-web if necessary. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that written down anywhere? The Internet Archive is pretty stable, and I'm pretty sure nobody's backing up every article on CNN.com on microfilm. I looked at WP:GNG and WP:RS and they don't mention paper or microfilm backups. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, CNN is a television channel, with content backup on video that can be accessed off-web in video libraries. And guess what else I see all the time in the news archiving databases I use when I need to locate deadlinked, paywalled or pregooglable news coverage: transcripts of television newscasts. It's simple common sense: weblinks can and do die, and we run into that problem all the time. So if we don't possess the ability to recover a dead reference to verify what it said, then the content is not referenced anymore. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Where is the policy that says that all sources must be backed up in a way that's accessible off-web? -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of "policy", it's a question of "anything that meets all of our requirements to be considered a reliable source will, by definition, always automatically have that by virtue of the way the world works". Newspapers, by definition, have or had print editions — even the relatively few newspapers that have recently gone fully web-only, if they have any accepted status as real or trustworthy newspapers at all, still get archived in the same databases that their old print editions are archived in. Magazines, by definition, have or had print editions that can be found in libraries. Books, by definition, have paper copies that can be found in libraries. Television network newscasts, by definition, have video archives and paper transcripts that can be found in libraries. It's not that we have a policy demanding archiving as a condition of being a reliable source — it's that archiving is a thing that automatically happens to any source that is actually reliable. It may sound a bit tautological, but it's actually the truth: making backup copies is a thing the world automatically does with all genuinely reliable sources as a matter of course, so anything that meets our conditions to be considered a reliable source will have backups because backing up reliable sources is just an automatic feature of how the world works.
The Internet Archive, on the other hand, just scrapes everything on the web whether it's a reliable source or not, so a blog doesn't magically turn into a reliable source just because you can retrieve it from there. If it were a valuable or reliable source, there would be a paper copy somewhere, because ever since humans learned the hard way that reliable sources can be lost if we're not careful, trying to ensure that sources exist in both digital and physical form, and backing them up in multiple places so that if one copy does get lost or destroyed others still exist, is what the world does with sources that are reliable enough to preserve. Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cited five policies in your nomination: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:BLOGS and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. None of those policies mention hard-copy backups on paper or microfilm. The most relevant policy, WP:BLOGS, says that editors should avoid using personal blogs, because they're self-published; it doesn't say anything about digital media being inherently invalid. Your assertions are not backed up by policy. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice strawman. I specifically said it's not a policy question we're talking about — archiving of reliable sources is simply a basic feature of how the world works. Nothing that is a reliable source ever lacks hard copy backup, because hard copy backup is what the world automatically always does with its reliable sources as a matter of course. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a digital archivist I'm going to tap in here and say, "hard copy backup is what the world automatically always does with its reliable sources" is not universal or achievable. It's also patently false. We're losing born digital resources at an incalculable rate not because they aren't reliable, but because the resources and infrastructure don't exist to maintain them or recreate them in hard copy. And that's completely ignoring the threat climate change and war pose to the viability or archived records of value stored blow current sea levels or in vulnerable geographic locations. This discussion has descended into philosophical navel gazing and is taking away from the issue at hand. Nana aba Duncan is notable regardless of whether or not you like how it's been supported. If I'm going to have RGW thrown at me for pointing out the obvious, I'd like the record to show you're doing the same with your black and white approach to notability and long-term verifiability. We'd all like the blue sky scenario, the reality is we don't have it.--Dnllnd (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: You're Bearcat. ミラP 05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You say that like I didn't know it. "Illeism is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device." Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toughpigs, but my RGW argument still stands. ミラP 02:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. As a writer, I think the argument that all reliable sources will be backed up on microfilm or paper hilarious. Sadly, neither of those things last forever (just like web links) and they get lost (!) so it seems ridiculous to require these. Sometimes digitized copies are all you can find. I actually write for wholly digital publications that are nonetheless published by editorial teams, backed up by trustworthy sources, and considered reliable by universities and other institutions. It's not RGW to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than go off on a tangent pursuing vague notions of a complete, easily navigable physical library for all sources, that will be magically accessible to all of Wikipedia's present and future contributors. IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only GNG-eligible sources present in the entire article come from her own employer. There is not a single other source in the entire article that is both (a) reliable, and (b) about her (which is not the same thing as "glancingly mentioning her in the process of being fundamentally about something else") — but journalists don't get into Wikipedia on the basis of content self-conferred by the issuer of their own paycheques, either: they get into Wikipedia when they've been the subject of coverage in sources other than their own employer, so her own employer can't magically GNG her all by itself if there are no other GNG-worthy sources anywhere else in the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's possible that Euro Mediterranean Airlines warrants its own article, but notability hasn't been established here. Regardless, there is consensus to delete this in its present form. – bradv🍁 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Italy Egypt[edit]

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

Article on short-lived, charter airline in Egypt that once may have operated one (1) airplane has no verifiable sources (there are two unverifiable sources of questionable quality). A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Flight International is a reliable source and is verifiable (although their online archives are not currently available) as paper copies of the magazine exist. What needs to be confirmed is the nature of the coverage in the Flight directory and whether it says enough to be counted as significant coverage under GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel Ish, Hmmmm... any clues on how this could be accomplished in a reasonable manner? even assuming it does, do we have a second independent source on which to base notability? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable source but an indication it actually existed as an operator
  • Rename back to Euro Mediterranean Airlines as it clearly operated commercial services under that name, normal benchmark is an airline had to operate at least one commercial service to be of note. MilborneOne (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"normal benchmark is an airline had to operate at least one commercial service" - I am unable to find a policy describing that. Chetsford (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 15:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apatas Air[edit]

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

Article on short-lived, charter airline in Lithuania that once may have operated two small aircraft has no verifiable sources (there are two unverifiable sources of questionable quality). A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Flight International is a reliable source and is verifiable (although their online archives are not currently available) as paper copies of the magazine exist. What needs to be confirmed is the nature of the coverage in the Flight directory and whether it says enough to be counted as significant coverage under GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Flight[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  JGHowes  talk 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ogmios group[edit]

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

Article on a real estate company has a single reference whose quality is unclear as it's a dead link. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references other than some Lithuanian language press releases from the firm. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons given in the nomination. It seems to lack notability. The only things out there about it are press releases. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. potential advert. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. Saying it's one of the biggest by way of "turnover" is unverifiable and Puffery. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references. Solely promotion. Dorama285 01:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gary Gygax. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hekaforge Productions[edit]

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

Article on a profitmaking company is sourced to a few short sentences in a 412 page reference book. A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to find additional WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Gary Gygax. Company not of interest outside of its relationship to its creative principal, but content still worth retaining per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE. Of course, the Nom could withdraw the nomination now and just do the work himself. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Redirect. I object to Merge due to the company already being described in sufficient detail in the Gygax article, sourced to the same reference as this article. Chetsford (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Gygax article. Merging doesn't seem necessary per last comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, per WP:SK#1. North America1000 07:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English Shepherd[edit]

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

Fails GNG, all of the verifiable cited sources are not RS. A search of Google reveals nothing attributable, only the usual self published owners guides etc. Cavalryman (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as two reliable sources have been presented by Thjarkur. Cavalryman (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is mentioned in these two non-self-published sources: [1][2], but it has surprisingly few mentions in other sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thjarkur, thank you for finding those two, I did not see them amongst the first ten pages of Google books I trawled through, due to them I have withdrawn the nomination. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any real argument here for delete. I am sure the article can be source and I don't see how a real WP:BEFORE has been done at all. I mean, I found this source straight away, and there are plenty of sources on the internet to use. This AfD is a joke and a waste of people's time. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A single webpage does not notability make. Cavalryman (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. I have no idea why this was nominated. This is just as notable as any other dog breed. There are multiple clubs and organizations devoted to this breed. They were previously known as American farm shepherds in the USA.[3] —МандичкаYO 😜 11:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are not a huge number of sources, but it seems to have enough to be notable. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Cho Min academic credentials scandal. There is a clear consensus that Cho Min herself is not notable, although the scandal is. Since we're split on whether this is better covered in its own article or as a section in the article about Cho Kuk, I'll move this for now, without prejudice against a merge discussion on the talk page as the article gets reworked. – bradv🍁 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Min[edit]

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

The article needs to be scrutinized, in particular with regard to WP:BLP, whether its subject has independent of her father encyclopedic notability. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to her father per WP:CRIME "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Her only claim to independent notability appears to be her falsified credentials; otherwise, as an ordinary medical student, it would be far WP:TOOSOON for notability through research contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , merge and redirect to Cho Kuk as the reason for notability is through falsifying achievements. Taewangkorea (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fraudlent claims of doing things are not so rare as to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major case of fraud that will have lasting impact on Korean society, especially in education, and is comparable to Hwang Woo-suk, Chung Yoo-ra and Shin Jeong-ah. Many of the issues involved are still in an on-going basis, with more information coming from the trial and her fraudulent college admissions. There are many repurcussions surrounding this person, and if the article is deleted, it would be difficult to add new information as this matter progresses. Koraskadi (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cho_Kuk#Falsification_of_Academic_Achievements_of_Cho_Min, which should make it easy enough for people to continue adding developing coverage to Wikipedia. If the section gets so long as to be unwieldy, or starts to include information with no relevance to Kuk, an article can be split off again. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Neiltonks, PC78, Finnusertop, Christian140, who participated alongside Koraskadi and myself in a relevant merge discussion that had gone stale before this AfD was opened. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 02:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgefield School District (Connecticut)[edit]

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

Not notable, unorganized, no secondary sources ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Offhand, this seems like a lazy deletion nomination, with no mention of wp:BEFORE searching. "unorganized" is not a deletion reason, nor is "no secondary sources". Nor is "not notable" if nominator has not done some work.
Anyhow, it's a school district and sources will exist, about the district and/or about its 8 schools, and it could obviously be developed. You could add secondary sources if you wanted; wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If you are a deletionist, then you should support Keeping or creating school district articles, towards heading off creation of separate articles about all the schools. New articles about any of:
    • Barlow Mountain Elementary School[3] (329 students; in grades PreK-5)
    • Branchville Elementary School[4] (360; PreK-5)
    • Farmingville Elementary School[5] (329; K-5)
    • Ridgebury Elementary School[6] (338; PreK-5)
    • Scotland Elementary School[7] (374; PreK-5)
    • Veterans Park Elementary School[8] (282; PreK-5)
    • Scotts Ridge Middle School (closer) and Ridgefield High School (farther) share the same campus.
    • East Ridge Middle School[9] (500; 6-8)
    • Scotts Ridge Middle School[10] (697)
may probably be redirected to this article, and/or redirects could be created now.
Help develop Wikipedia, not force multiple editors to consider AFD ideas where generally Wikipedia's typical treatment is already settled, as here. --Doncram (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Doncram, and the half hour I just spent finding multiple sources. The subject of a Wikipedia article is notable if reliable sources exist, regardless of how brief or poorly written an article may be in its current state. In this instance, knowing to search on "Ridgefield Schools" rather than the full article title was key to conducting an adequate search for WP:BEFORE. Below are sources that may be used to expand the existing article. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Really, Really, Big Bronze Tiger Drops at Ridgefield High School
  2. Ridgefield test scores are on the rise
  3. Schools seek $102 million budget, 4.11% spending increase
  4. Serious infrastructure problems at Ridgefield schools
  5. Ridgefield schools hire 19 new teachers, 22 staffers
  6. Ridgefield schools will return $50,000 to town
  7. Ridgefield schools to request nearly $100 million budget
  8. Ridgefield schools try to fix waning math scores
  9. Ridgefield School District, Connecticut Demographics
  10. Sen. Chris Murphy recognizes Ridgefield freshman for MLK essay
  11. Ridgefield schools hire former Newington chief
  12. Police Investigating Hazing - High School Won't Release Number of Students or Teams Involved
  13. Ridgefield Coach Resigns
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - besides all the sources above showing a clear GNG pass, US school districts are inherently notable by the same standard incorporated settlements are. They have fixed boundries, and charge taxes. John from Idegon (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - to expand upon John from Idegon's comment, I believe school districts qualify under WP:NGEO as Populated, legally recognized places. MarginalCost (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. New sources from definitely-reliable publications were added by Toughpigs and no arguments have been raised to dispute the relevance or quality of these over a full relist period. ~ mazca talk 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar Limo[edit]

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

Not notable. Could not find any sources. The two sources cited are a YouTube channel and a personal website, neither of which are WP:RS. Redirected to Disney California Adventure, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. -- φ OnePt618Talk φ 06:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of former Disney California Adventure attractions. I'm finding plenty of mentions of the ride, but the vast majority of them are either from unreliable sources (blogs, humor articles, etc), or from purely local coverage. The few bits of information that are showing up in potentially reliable sources are limited to pretty much name dropping it as a former attraction at the park. So, I'm not seeing the coverage needed for this to have an independent article. It is already covered in the list I suggested, though, so at the very least a redirection there should be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an example of one of Disney's rare flops of an attraction. This in and of itself makes it notable.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 07:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is light as it stands now, and could really be beefed up with more citations. But those citations are plentiful regarding its notability. For example, Here is a recent Orange County newspaper article that I just ran across that explains how a recent Disney+ show is highlighting it: "The oft-maligned Superstar Limo dark ride is held up as a prime example of offensive theme park design." I'll add this and some other references to the article to beef it up. But I do think it is plenty notable.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 06:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I searched for the ride after reading this article. So it's a real world case of wanting to know more about it. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've added some more sources, including the New York Times and the Boston Globe, talking about the ride as the worst original attraction in Disney California Adventure. I believe that there are now enough sources to establish notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Keon[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO (creator= Keonw) of a writer, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for writers. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which writers are automatically entitled to have articles just because their own work technically metaverifies its own existence -- the notability test for a writer requires some evidence of his significance as a writer, such as winning notable literary awards or at least having enough reliable source coverage (journalism, critical analysis, etc.) about him to clear WP:GNG. But the only notability claim in evidence here is that his work exists, and the referencing is not getting him over GNG: two are just his own writing being cited as circular verification of its own existence, two are mere directory entries on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's directly affiliated with, and one is a completely unrecoverable deadlink whose content and reliability are impossible to verify (even on the Wayback Machine, it was already a dead link the first time it was ever scraped at all.) As always, the notability test for a writer is not just that he exists, but requires journalism to be done about him in media -- and even a writer who can be shown to properly clear our notability standards still isn't entitled to create his own article himself, per WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have notified the article's creator about this dicussion. Mindmatrix 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally tagged this for COI (based on the username of the creator), and performed a cursory web and Google Books search for this person. Indications are that there has been some coverage of him, but I cannot access any of it. Whether this coverage is by reliable sources is the concern, and I currently do not see such sources. Perhaps there are offline sources (eg - Canadian literature or indigenous culture magazines), or coverage accessible only via ProQuest or similar archives. The current article reads a bit like a CV and a bit as a collection of trivia. Mindmatrix 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing does not support WP:GNG and does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOET. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trimbak Tupe[edit]

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

The person is mayor of Aurangabad, 6th largest city of Maharashtra. The article does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move back to draft. This was promoted from draft space to main space by an unqualified reviewer. Based on the comments here, I'd probably delete this, but instead I'm just going to undo the incorrect acceptance and move it back to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maayanadhi[edit]

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

Unknown film whose article was created to promote a person (Bhavathrani, whose biography is included in the production section). Also sources are from film sites and local news sites. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Not a well written article, but taking into account that its a released movie with enough references, we should consider to keep but it needs editing. The9Man talk 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely promotional per nom. Breaches WP:NPOV and also fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources describe about movie. All references are about the persons in cast and crew. GargAvinash (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It has WP:NPOV issues but it passes WP:NF. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I edited it out. I also came across Bhavatharini, which is factually incorrect, and appears to be a hoax. I have not performed any searches regarding the film or Bhavatharini yet, but I have a feeling COI/UPE and/or giving out misinformation can be a possibility here. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Possibly not the best way to present this content, but a clear consensus not to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Airlines[edit]

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

Compilation of fictional organizations from several fictional universes that share similar name; none appears to be discussed in depth and therefore all seem to fail WP:NFICTION/GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Keep I found some refs in Adweek (though that one refers back to Wikipedia in a circular way), and Fortune, but overall it seems to be too non-notable for a standalone article. However, it could probably be merged to List of fictional companies if someone were to create that article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST: Besides the refs listed above, I found this: "Hollywood's Flight Frights: The Bombs Are Back: Now It's Safe to Scare in the Air" by Greg Morago, Hartford Courant (July 21, 2005). It's a newspaper article specifically about movies and TV shows using "Oceanic Airlines" to depict airline disasters. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as multiple reliable sources have been identified in this discussion that show significant coverage of the subject so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that this has appeared across several works and is a likely search target (I know I would have looked it up). No prejudice to make this a a case study for Fictional company, where it was already described pre-AfD. – sgeureka t•c 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Since the vast majority of this article is listing trivial references to this fictional airline that really should be removed from the article. Most of the things listed are trivial mentions, such as, most ridiculously, its use as a template for flight reminders in software. Once this gets trimmed of the useless trivia, what's left is reduced to a paragraph about Lost and a couple of items listed that can easily fit into a larger list article (such as some of those mentioned above). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. It has appeared in several movies and other pop culture references, and WP:NEXIST may apply here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Just because it's fictional doesn't mean it's not-notable. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Qualifies as a multiple-independent-use fictional company, in the same way that Acme Corporation does. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – with all those references in popular culture, people will undoubtedly google 'Oceanic Airlines' to find out more. It seems perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to offer some info about it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:51, 23 February 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. North America1000 07:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Hazarika[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill playback singer. Google search shows that she exists and publicizes herself, but no in-depth coverage.

Article created by now-blocked promotional editor, draftified, move-warred back to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's a general consensus here that the album is sufficiently notable and covered in enough sources. ~ mazca talk 00:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something Supernatural[edit]

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

Not a notable work. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. My initial search when redirecting found no reliable sources, and few of the online metal "zines" even covered it. AllMusic has a database entry but no review or rating (https://www.allmusic.com/album/something-supernatural-mw0002735553) The one source I found was https://www.guitarworld.com/features/something-supernatural-crobot-guitarist-chris-bishop-talks-new-album-and but it feels WP:ROUTINE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Meets GNG for charting on numerous album charts for one, and diminishing sources as routine is very IDONTLIKEIT. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOt an IDONTLIKE it response since 1) Billboard isn't returned when searching with Google and you added the charts after the nomination. Minor charts so I don't think it meets WP:NALBUM and certainly not GNG for the charting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard Heatseekers is not a significant chart; it is of value to industry insiders wishing to gauge the appeal of artists who have not yet charted proper. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I won't comment on the nominator's motivation, but the article needed to be improved rather than deleted. However, the fact that Billboard doesn't show up in Google is a strange excuse for not looking at Billboard directly. The album made the Hard Rock Albums chart, which cannot be dismissed as readily as the Heatseekers chart. That establishes enough notability for a viable stub article, and it can be fleshed out with material from many reviews in the usual hard rock/metal zines, plus several mentions in the reliable Loudwire (e.g. [4]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improve the article by all means, but if the best we can say about the album is that it charted, then we can list that information in the subject's article with the same effect. We do not need a permastub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I only did a brief search but was able to find a couple of reviews in reliable sources ([5] [6]) as well as news stories that discuss the album ([7] [8] [9]). There are also numerous reviews in sources which may or may not be reliable ([10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]). I'm not particularly familiar with this field/genre so I can't really tell offhand which of those are considered reliable or not; some of them at a glance do not appear to pass WP:RS, whereas for others, a search in the RS noticeboard indicates editors have previously suggested they could be considered reliable for limited purposes, such as in the case of an album review. In any event, even if you threw away all the questionable ones, I think between the coverage I've found so far in the definitely reliable sources, and the Billboard chart rankings, this subject passes notability standards enough that the article should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 16:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First isn't a review of the album. Second, nationalrockreview.com, is not a RS. Again villagevoice.com, not about the album. Fourth and fifth are passing mentions. I stopped after the poor sourcing of those five. In short, not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The album has charted, and there are reliable sources. "My initial search when redirecting" is not relevant per WP:GOOGLEHITS, ditto "Billboard isn't returned when searching with Google". WP:ROUTINE is for regular events that always get coverage; it doesn't apply to the GuitarWorld source, which is an interview with a band about their new album -- not a routine event that always gets coverage no matter what. Lots of albums get released; they don't all get reviews in Guitar World and National Rock Review. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NALBUM states that "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria" and since all it seems to meet is charting, and no additional content, it fails notability criteria. Your argument that it charted is rubbish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator is getting very close to WP:BLUDGEON territory here. That is a matter of opinion, but if the statement "Your argument that it charted is rubbish" is meant to conclude that the album did not chart, well it did: [16]. Or, if that statement is meant to conclude that the nominator does not think that charting matters, that argument is on the losing side of the WP:CONSENSUS process. When you emphasize the overwhelmingly flexible word may you have to accept that others will see it differently, and for valid reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't misrepresnt what I wrote. It charted, but not on major charts. The emphasis is not mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My life is too hectic this week to weigh in with a fair keep or delete vote, given that I seldom do so unless I can devote the time to a thorough assessment of sources. That said, perhaps this subject merits a keep but it's a bit troubling to read so much rational based on editors proclaiming significance for charts that aren't, and deeming sources reliable that aren't. Under what criteria can a promotional entity such as National Rock Review be considered a Reliable Source? Because they have a wikipedia page? Please check their website's "about" link [17]. If they have undergone a wikipedia source review and have passed the test, then editors have made a mistake, IMO. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per the sources presented above. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Choudhury[edit]

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

Plainly promotional, sources are primary (interviews), mention the subject only in passing, or don't actually pertain to the subject at all. Previous PROD contested by User:Aspects. Domeditrix (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Besides the article being promotional - that lede - nearly all of his "notability" falls under WP:NOTINHERITED (involvement with a notable concert, performed on a notable show, etc.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after performing a search, all I could find was coverage primary sources (either of the shows, or his interviews), the secondary sources are non-reliable telly/gossip sites. In short, subject fails WP:NCREATIVE, and as they dont have significant coverage in reliable sources, subject fails WP:GNG as well. Talking about article being promotional, it was that way even in 2012. I didnt go further in history. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:OUTCOMES. This appears to be a very ordinary producer of shows, one of thousands, and we almost always delete pages about producers. Likewise, his appearance on reality television shows does not prove notability - literally thousands of Britons compete annually on such TV shows. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete - Every sentence is cited way too much. Also, there are a lot of primary sources. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 01:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same above reasons but I would also suggest that his dance company Bolly Flex (or is it FlexFX?) are potentially worthy of a Wikipedia page, in which Naz could be mentioned as a founder/director. In cleaning up the links most of them were connected with their performances, not Naz. It was particularly infuriating that he had apparently edited the link descriptions to mention his name, even if the articles were not about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.227.132.9 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the company meets the notability guidelines (I'm not certain that it does), feel free to make the page and submit it through Articles for Creation. To create an article, however, you need to make an account (apologies if you have one and just aren't logged in). Domeditrix (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. I don't have an account but felt so strongly about this entry that I ended up venturing into editing. Happy to leave the rest of the future edits and decisions to the rest of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.227.132.9 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R.I.C. Dildar Nagar[edit]

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

The article is supposed to be about a university but cites no sources. The article is plain nonsense and just states it is in the middle of a town. Dellwood546 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:V. The article's information is conflicting. While the categories says the subject is a higher ed. institution, it is affiliated to the state's secondary school board. An online list shows 72 schools in Dildarnagar, and R.I.C. is not on the list. The directory justdial.com lists dozens of universities and colleges in Dildarnagar but nothing like R.I.C. or RIC. The article claims the subject is a very large centrally located school, but no trace of it can be found beyond Wikipedia mirrors. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Assuming good faith, thus must be misnamed, or perhaps it existed only briefly, which is common in Asia. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason M. Burns[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable BLP with no reliable independent sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The person has won awards, and has collabarated with numerous notable people, I do believe that it is notable enough. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neither "winning awards" nor collaborating with notable people meet any notability guideline. Indeed, WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly debars connection with notable people to be held in isolation as conferring notability, and one must win significant awards to meet WP:BIO. For WP:CREATIVE -- the guideline pertinent here -- what element does any keep proponent claim the subject meets, and with what evidence? Ravenswing 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing - not even close to notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in a field full of awards, this one is mundane. Sources include MySpace. Really?! Searches online only show press releases from Business Wire. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Central Valley Project. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Valley Project Water Association[edit]

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

A non-notable organisation with no independent secondary sources available, and very little cited and sourced information on this page at all (primary or secondary). If any information is able to be rescued, could be merged into Central Valley Project instead. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Search also on "CVPWA". Maybe it is not in current news. But searching either way in Google books gives links to CVPWA having lobbyists, and testifying before the U.S. Congress including in 1991 hearings about Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and to commenting within enviromental impact issue stuff about the American River watershed, and seems like a bunch more. I can't get all the way to see the contents within the books/reports. I am not sure about this organization. --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searched on "CVPWA" and there are lots of hits, but mostly quotes of the director stating the org's position on various issues. Not really in-depth coverage of the org. This story in US News is the best I found. [18], [19], [20] are some other mentions. MB 02:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no useful sources in the article (yes, I'm counting the External links), and none presented here in the AfD. No sources, no article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Central Valley Project. No sources indicate notability under GNG or NORG but definitely relevant to the Project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Beer and Brewing[edit]

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

This museum has never been opened and there is very little evidence of notability whilst the museum has been planned. No evidence of multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The page claims it has opened but the source does not check out, and other sources and pages are all promotional. Nothing demonstrates notability. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete source never said that it opened just that is was organized as a non-profit to start a collection. Not enough notability (now). Royalbroil 16:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No real agreement that the reviews are significant enough coverage to show notability. However also no real agreement that they don't. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aridhu Aridhu[edit]

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

Unknown film with poor sources. This film fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft space there are some sources, but just mere mentions Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the New Indian Express reference in the article is a review directly of the film so counts as significant coverage but more is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Also found a review of the film's music in The Hindu here Atlantic306 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft space, at least until better sources are found. Only non-duplicate sources I could find were [toxiboi 1] and [toxiboi 2], and those only mentioned the film. The articles themselves were more focused on actors.
    The current sources (in this rev) only come from two publications. I don't think the current sources in the article, nor the ones I found, really show that the movie adheres to WP:MOVIE. To quote that page, "reliable sources should have significant coverage." Not just say the film's name once and move on. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 20:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New Indian Express review and the Hindu review are both significant coverage directly about the film, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/thalapathy-vijays-bigil-in-trouble-over-allegation-of-copyright-violation/articleshow/71643578.cms
  2. ^ https://www.newsbricks.com/entertainment/harish-kalyan-upcoming-movie/33097
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of red-light districts[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a travel guide. This is an indiscriminate list of places where prostitution allegedly happens, although very few of the sources refer to them as red-light districts per se. As a stand-alone list, this fails WP:LISTN, and most of the entries on this list violate original research and/or synthesis. – bradv🍁 15:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Compliant with WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN. WP:NLIST is irrelevant as this is not a list of people. All entries are either wikilinked to articles or referenced. Because the references do not specifically use the term "Red-light district" does not make this WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant WP:LISTN, and have made the correction above. – bradv🍁 18:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: How exactly does using sources to put an entry in "list of red-light districts" where the place is not actually referred to as a red light district not a WP:SYNTH issue? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is it SYNTH? If in an article about a painting a references calls it a work, canvas, landscape or portrait but not a painting is that also SYNTH as the exact terminology is used? Of course not. The same principle applies here. --John B123 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legal status by region belongs or is duplicated at Prostitution by region, so merge that content there. As for the list: very few of the citations actually call the listed item a red-light district - some are simply crime articles talking about prostitution in that area. Delete, or trim the list to only include those with secondary sources that refer to the area as a red-light district such as the Amsterdam or Montreal examples. Alternatively, move to List of places where prostitution has occurred. –xenotalk 18:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The assumption that the only reason for keeping a list of red-light districts is because one might want to visit them is extremely strange. There are all manner of sources on them across a range of disciplines (history, public health, sociology, just for a start) - and for good reason. It clearly needs improved sourcing and pruning (some of the ones in areas I'm familiar with are rubbish), and the legal status is largely a matter for other articles, but as ever, AfD is not cleanup. It could do with some more general improvement as well - many of these places need context (for example, St Kilda, Victoria and Hay Street, Kalgoorlie are red light districts in very different ways) and it sorely needs a "historic" section for the many notable districts that once were but are no longer. The suggestion of List of places where prostitution has occurred is one of the funniest suggestions I've ever seen on AfD, considering that you'd have to list most places on earth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN. It's an odd one, but is guidelines-compliant. Hog Farm (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Red-light districts are culturally notable and extensively documented. Meets notability for lists. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument here for deletion seems floored. The list is well sourced it seems, the prose at the beginning of the article should be expanded on in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy: Right now the article is a “List of places where prostitution has occurred” (which - as The Drover's Wife has intimated - is a rather absurd, probably limitless, inclusion criteria). –xenotalk 12:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see why you think this list is absurd, Red-Light district has become more generic in it's use. I actually think the list could be shaved down a bit. The lack of prose, commentary, history as to why each location should be included in the list worries me a bit. This should be about locations where prostitution has hand a permanent home. Govvy (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy: That...would not be the shorter list you think it is. Xeno: I think that's quite an exaggeration about the list as it stands (as John notes in his review below). It just needs a solid review for sourcing, and having more closely reviewed the ones for my area, I would add to my above comment that I think there probably needs to be a clearer definition of "red light district". (There's several that I would call questionably sourced to publications from regulators/lobby groups that give figures for alleged street-based sex work in areas that aren't necessarily known for it). The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having gone through the first two sections of the article, Africa & Asia (about 30% of the article), reference by reference, the majority use the term "red-light district" within the reference. Based on this, the nominator's "most of the entries on this list" seems an overstatement. Where the references did not specifically mention red-light district I have in most cases added additional references that do use that terminology. I will continue through the article, so the question of is calling an "area of prostitution" a "red-light district" WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS becomes irrelevant. Similarly the "List of places where prostitution has occurred" rather than "List of red-light districts" issue is resolved. --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic; we can have a list of these. Is nominator aware of wp:CLNT? And per John B123, others. --Doncram (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issue of clear focus upon officially-declared red light districts (common in U.S. history as matter of governments' zoning/planning for restricting adult-themed businesses) vs. broader definition to include any/all locations of prostitution, is a matter for editing and discussion at Talk page, not AFD. --Doncram (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really important and one of the first things that needs to happen in any cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Red light areas are culturally notable and can be informative in many ways, for example NGOs. However this article needs a collabortive effort to keep the information appropriate. The9Man | (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable topic. Discriminate, referenced list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important topic for the sex work task force. The sources demonstrate that it is WP:NOTABLE. It does not have the level of detail to violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Knappe[edit]

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

Looks to have never actually played a pro game. Geschichte (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep Nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic zone[edit]

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

Another page referring to same topic with more appropriate and notable title already exists (see Pelagic zone) DishitaBhowmik 15:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I have resarched on this topic and various sources suggest that Oceanic zone is an indicative and informal term for Pelagic zone. Even their definitions on their respective pages suggest so. Here are a few references to validate my point.[reply]

Also notice how the article also shows the same sub-divisions as is usually the Pelagic zone divided into i.e. Epipelagic, Mesopelagic, Bathypelagic and Abyssopelagic. I was going to suggest that the page be merged. However, the content is nearly same as what exists on the other page. So I think that it can be safely deleted without any loss of information.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. DishitaBhowmik 15:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DishitaBhowmik 15:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the nominator is referring to our article on the pelagic zone. The sources that I can find, such as [21] and [22], do not treat this as a synomym, but say that the oceanic zone is a subset of the pelagic zone. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly Phil Bridger, but the oceanic zone constitutes most of the pelagic zone and the two are treated as synonymous unless at beginner level. This is due the fact that neritic zone is highly rich in biodiversity and repesents very less of it. Also it greatly differs from the rest of pelagic zone. Thus, it studied as a separate subject of study and interpretation of oceanic zone almost merges with the Pelagic zone.

This article may also be redirected to the Pelagic zone article, which can be edited to tell readers about the slight difference between the two. DishitaBhowmik 16:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Oceanic zone" refers to the open ocean beyond the continental shelf; it refers to offshore waters, in contrast to inshore waters. "Pelagic zone" refers to the body of water that stretches between the ocean surface and the ocean bottom; it refers to the open and free waters in the body of the sea that are not restricted by being close to some boundary, like rocks or the seafloor or the surface. The two concepts are fundamentally different, though they do have a tendency to get mixed up. For example, instead of saying as I just did, that the pelagic zone "refers to open water..." I could equally have said that the pelagic zone "refers to open ocean...". And then it might seem as though I am talking about the oceanic zone. But the "oceanic zone" is not the same as the ocean, is a more specific term than the ocean. I can see why Dishita is finding this confusing, so I will rewrite, in due course, part of the oceanic zone article to provide some clarification. – Epipelagic (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epipelagic. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Epipelagic! I think now that it would be better not to delete the article. However it needs major rewording and expansion. We can close the discussion now. DishitaBhowmik 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. As pointed out, whether we should have an article does not necessarily fit with the state of the current article. Returning to draft. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Pandya[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not demonstrated as having enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, every mayor of every city is not handed an automatic notability freebie just because she exists -- making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires writing a substantive article, referenced to a lot of media coverage, about her political importance. Just writing "she exists, the end", and sourcing it to a single news article verifying her initial selection as mayor, is not enough to make a mayor notable all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Rajendrababu is another AfD on mayor being discussed.
  • Delete never won any major election hence fails WP:NPOL no major accomplishments to merit an article. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even the one source cited for the article's one sentence shows significant secondary coverage. Which is scarcely surprising, since we are talking about the mayor of a city of more than 2 million people. Even if one discounts the coverage of her actions as mayor for some reason (as some have attempted to interpret the GNG in these cases), she has also received coverage outside of that role in multiple sources, having been at the center of at least one major controversy: [23], [24]. Nom's suggested requirement of "a lot of media coverage about her political importance" lacks any discernible support in policy. No WP:BLP issue is apparent in the article, and the nom has not indicated any. -- Visviva (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that the source cited for the article has only 2 lines about the subject and I quote "A very active party worker and functionary, this is her first term as a councillor. Her education, personality and organisational skills were seen as major positives." This is not what we call significant coverage. DBigXrayᗙ 20:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is correct about how mayoral notability works. It is not established by writing "she exists, the end" and single-sourcing her existence to a single news article about her initial election or selection as mayor — every mayor of every single city town or village on the entire planet can always single-source the fact that they exist or existed as a mayor, so if that were how it worked then we'd always have to keep an article about everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere. But we do not accept all mayors of all places as being "inherently" notable just because they exist as a mayor — making a mayor notable enough for an article most certainly does require the ability to write much more than just one sentence about her existence, and to cite much more than just one source to support it. Even just trying to claim that she passed WP:GNG would still require quite a bit more than just one source. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor of a city with more than 1 million people. Further, there are likely to be significantly more sources in Gujarati, a totally different script. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have to be shown to exist, not just presumed to probably exist, before the prospect of improved sourcing becomes a valid argument against deletion. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that any size of city confers its mayors with a free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. Mayoral notability always lives or dies on the quality and depth and range of the sources the person can show to support an article with, and never just on the population of the city itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Azim Mattu[edit]

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

The four sources presented in the article is insufficient to pass our notability guidelines. The article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. He is the mayor of a city with 1,800,000 people, and that city is capital of the territory. The city he is mayor should fall under "regional prominence" stated in POLOUTCOMES. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Popularly elected mayor of Srinagar. The sources already existing in the article appear sufficient to write a more that "he exists" article about the subject. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor of a major city. Enough to pass WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per past precedent. We almost always keep the popularly-elected mayors of large cities, especially ones that are regionally important and having millions of residents. This compares, to a mayor elected by the city council of a city of 1/4 million residents, which would not be automatically notable. I would also argue that Srinagar is important as a major pilgrimage site of several religions, even though it's not as well known in the United States. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Chauhan (politician)[edit]

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

The first source is self published. Last one is about his sworning (both are dead). These are not enough for passing him WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shimla is a large enough city that a substantive and well sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, but this article is nowhere near substantive or well-sourced enough to pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL. Mayor of the largest and capital city of an Indian state, which falls under "regional prominence." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page as I believe this qualifies under WP:NPOL. He was mayor of an Indian state capital for five years. Also he is the first mayor of Shimla belonging to the political party CPI(M), which has historical significance as well. Aravind V R (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor of the capital city and largest city within the Himachal Pradesh state. I would recommend adding more sources and expanding the article's content. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per past precedent. Mayors of large, historical, capital cities are almost always kept. Shimla was the declared seasonal capital of the Indian Empire under the Raj, and remains a state capital. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications tower[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues and should be redirected to Radio masts and towers which covers the same material in greater depth. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom following advice below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, why is this being brought to AfD? Redirect, not deletion, is being proposed. Redirect seems pretty reasonable. Me, I would boldly redirect and withdraw the AfD to save other editors the time and effort. Just a thought. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Hog Farm (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (procedural), wrong forum, nominator should have followed the guidelines at WP:REDIRECT. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RxAll Inc.[edit]

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

Organization does not satisfy WP:NCORP & invariably has no WP:CORPDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is plenty of coverage in reputable publications, and in considerable depth. The article needs a lot of attention but the company is clearly notable. Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: where did you find depth of coverage? These look like routine funding announcements by the titles. - Bri.public (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Chemistry World is a respectable source. I've never heard of Sahara Reporters before, but it seems independent and the article is in considerable depth. It's made the Guardian, though not in much depth. Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is sufficient coverage to establish notability as provided in some of the sources including one mentioned above and this and this. Besides, this is one of those subjects in my opinion that do great work and deserves a stand-alone especially in view of the fact that many greedy western companies and others are using Africa as a dumping ground or guinea pigs to send their dangerous drugs to, which they would not dare sell in the west—in fear of being find or jailed. It would help many of our readers who do not have the luxury. I would rather read an article about this organization than a pretty western bimbo famous for only showing their boops. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important US-Africa medical company. Some coverage from around the globe: [25][26][27][28].--Chuka Chief (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regarding to what Senegambianamestudy and Chuka Chief has given, stated and cited, It stand a chance to stay in Wikipedia, the article has a story to tell. An@ss_koko(speak)(war) 20:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Husky[edit]

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

Fails GNG, likely a little WP:TOOSOON. None of the cited sources are RS, a search of Google reveals nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the cited sources are reliable. The only reliable source that I could find was "Labrador Huskies in the Falkland Islands Dependencies and Antarctica", Dickinson 2015, who discusses use of the huskies from Labrador and refers to them as the Labrador husky. Therefore fails GNG. William Harristalk 11:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Labrador. A perfectly plausible search term. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you redirect a husky to a region of Canada? William Harristalk 11:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with William Harris, redirecting this article to Labrador (a geographic and cultural region within the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador) is inappropriate. Cavalryman (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. The sources are there, and I've seen no explanation as to why they are unreliable. There is a complaint in Talk that they are not peer reviewed, which makes little sense because most cites are not. Additional complaints about the article from the same person claim that the breed is not established because it is similar to other breeds in appearance and whole genome sequencing hasn't been provided. This is again odd as this is the case for the vast majority of articles here on various dog breeds. Finally the person complains about grammatical errors present in the article (which they apparently didn't fix) and presents some uncited personal research to advocate for removal. I think that the case to remove is very poorly established. Philip72 (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Philip72 (talk), can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:RS; self published websites, websites comprised of user generated content and websites that write a disclaimer specifically stating they do not warrant the accuracy of any information they have published do not fall within the scope of acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The AKC website does not even mention them in the linked page. The other sources appear to be self-published. Peer-review papers are not required for "pop-culture" types of articles; I'm just looking for textbooks, reputable website, and news articles at a minimum. Todays Doggy magazine is not a reliable source. I found not a single newspaper article about this breed, and many books talk about mixed breed puppies. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NFT, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, etc. This is utterly unverifiable, a promotion piece (which appears to have cribbed liberally from other husky-related material on WP) for an effort to establish a breed that is not recognized by a single international or national kennel club/breed registry, and which has no coverage anywhere at all (not even tertiary sources like breed encyclopedias) beyond Web forums and self-published blogs by people with no real-world reputability as subject-matter experts (other than an alleged mention at WebMD, but that constitutes WP:UGC material anyway, I think). Do not redirect to Labrador, since an alleged dog breed has nothing to with a region of Canada in the abstract. Do not redirect to and summarize at Husky unless at least a couple of independent and actually secondary and reliable sources can confirm this isn't either just made up or just some "backyard breeder" experiment. WP has absolutely no reason to cover every single little population of dogs that someone made up a name for. Most attempts at breed establishment fail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No attempts have been made to refute the arguments that this individual is insufficiently notable based on works and coverage, and that the article appears to struggle to maintain a neutral point of view. ~ mazca talk 00:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajath Ravishankar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and not meeting with WP:NPOV. The article has been written in advertising manner and lacks tone. The subject is about the director who has only directed one film in his career and it is a kind of WP:TOOSOON. The article also has bare urls to be refilled. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. All participants have found a lack of reliable sources leading to insufficient evidence of notability. ~ mazca talk 23:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Stock Exchange[edit]

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

I'm not sure this passes the WP:NOTABILITY threshold; nearly all the material is cited from a website of the same name. There seems to be very, very little information relating to this in WP:RS, and all I can really find in mentions in passing such as this (quote: "Between 2007 and 2010, Jean was president of YMCA-Haiti. He’s a founding member of the Haitian Stock Exchange and an advocate of tourism promotion") and this mention in passing right at the bottom of this article (quote: "His father is a founder of the Haitian Stock Exchange in Port-au-Prince.").

Although the website shows today's date, the copyright notices on the website suggest that it hasn't been updated since 2009, which seems unusual for an active enterprise. I note also that the banner GIF on the http://www.haitianstockexchange.com website currently seems to be served from a URL blacklisted by my ISP's content filter, although this doesn't necessarily mean anything, as this could be a false positive.

One page on the website shows a PDF of what appears to be a scanned page from Le Moniteur, the official gazette of the Republic of Haiti, suggesting that the company is actually called the Société Haïtienne de Valeurs Mobilières ("Haitian Securities Company"), which also matches text on the website. There seem to be a number of French-language hits on this, but I haven't dug any deeper than that -- but a newspaper search for the term in French comes up with nothing.

In the absence of definitive evidence of notability, I suggest we delete this article until better evidence is available.

-- The Anome (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can add reliable citations and remove the promotional tone. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 03:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of actual sources that would meet requirements to demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Service Dogs of America[edit]

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

Fails GNG, the article is completely unsourced. A search of Google reveals nothing attributable, just a couple of non-RS websites. Cavalryman (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text appears to have been provided by the Central Florida SDA site link at the bottom of the article. Its "news" page has not been updated since February 26, 2011, and the 2 connected websites now host other organisations that have no relationship with SDA. The SDA activity appears to be defunct, with no RS and therefore fails GNG. William Harristalk 12:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ITEXISTS. While the org. doesn't appear to be completely defunct (there's passing mention in one Forbes article recently [29]), I can't find any in-depth material in secondary sources about it. Almost all news search hits for the phrase actually bring up two better-known organizations, Autism Service Dogs of America and Freedom Service Dogs of America.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gli anni struggenti[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a review in Variety, which I added. Several mentions of the movie leading up to its premiere too. It's a safe bet that there is Italian language coverage of an Italian film that was big enough to be reviewed in that publication--though it would be better if a source from a contemporary Italian publication could be found. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable enough. There's hits in google books with Italian language info on them but can't access them. Surely plenty of newspapers in Italy as well offline. Stars one of Italy's top actors Gabriele Ferzetti.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the Variety review and reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per the insightful comments above. Thanks to all, Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit kishnani[edit]

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

The article fails Notability. No signifant work to mention or references to support. Most of the Ref mentioned in the article are PR works. The9Man | (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, every source cited except one is the same PR piece word-for-word. Could not find independant sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should not be deleted immediately,as we are trying to improve the article Adnankhan1738 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    this was originally posted at Talk:Rohit kishnani, I moved it here. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adnankhan1738: Hi. When you said "we are trying to...", what do you mean by we? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources are suspect and no evidence of other notability in a web search. Also, the image for this article seems lifted from news sources with possible license laundering. I have tagged the image for speedy deletion as well. -- φ OnePt618Talk φ 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely a pr-piece, subject fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mass delete, in fact. All of these articles are sourced to blatant fake news blackhat SEO sites with no editorial standards. There is no coverage of this person to be found. Praxidicae (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: Hi. You are right about everything else, but I am not sure which other articles you are referring to. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons stated. Dorama285 19:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems like we have a consensus that WP:NPOL is not in fact met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thushar Vellapally[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL never won any state or national election. He stood third in one election. DBigXrayᗙ 07:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I linked the right policy. Tushar is one of the major local political figures who has received significant press coverage. They are already in the article and a simple google search will give you more, thus the subject meets WP:GNG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" criterion in NPOL #2 is for mayors and city councillors, not state party presidents or non-winning political candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in NPOL#2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." specifies that it only for mayors and city councilors, not state party presidents or non-winning political candidates.WP:NPOL also says just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Tushar is a businessman who also has an affiliation with SNDP and has received significant press coverage, therefore passing WP:GNG, and "Keep" is my vote.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a guideline may have been badly written does not make me remotely incorrect about what was intended by it. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if the subject passes WP:GNG, then they dont have to pass SNG. But regarding politicians, press releases, and routine coverage have to be taken into consideration. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.On the basis of reliable source he clearly meet WP:GNG-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  10:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Padavalamkuttanpilla, and what those sources are ? DBigXrayᗙ 10:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Party presidents aren't always notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SOAP, WP:RS, and WP:MILL. He's never won any election, and we almost always delete articles about losing political candidates. His notability is not inherited automatically as president of a small party. The party in particular is a far-right-wing pro-Hindu party, which concerns me that this might only be here for publicizing its extreme views. My belief is the same regardless of where they're on the spectrum. Proponents have not argued specifically which sources are reliable - I don't see any recognized sources. This is by all appearances a run of the mill, very ordinary political activist. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:RS. President of a marginal party, de facto just a WP:MILL local politician. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vellapally Natesan[edit]

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

A businessman and politician who fails WP:NPOL as he never won any state or national election. No major accomplishments either DBigXrayᗙ 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor T. Thomas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL never won any state or national election. No major accomplishments either DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Krishna Das[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL A politician who has never won any election and no major work done. DBigXrayᗙ 06:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all the three sources present here are not enough for passing WP:GNG as first one his published and last two are about his candidancy. The second point is taking part in Lok Sabha election is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. And last point is we do not think party's state presidents pass WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has not held any role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because he existed, but the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I disagree with saying that he failed WP:GNG on the basis of WP:SIGCOV. But this article is not perfect.In my opinion it should be expanded instead of deleted -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  12:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He's a member of a national commission, but I don't think that makes him automatically notable. If somebody can find better sources, I'd go along with keeping this one. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/pac-pushes-for-extension-of-platform-at-rly-station/articleshow/73562367.cms
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/cleaning-during-inspection-takes-railway-board-team-by-surprise-865979
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/kfc-elbows-out-jan-aahar-rail-passengers-suffer/articleshow/71929136.cms
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/Krishnadas-calls-for-all-party-meet-on-price-rise/article16894808.ece
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2017/sep/12/not-airing-speech-unconstitutional-krishnadas-1655701.html
https://www.asianet.in/trivandrum-news/krishnadas-made-bjp-secretary.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2019/jan/21/hunger-strike-ends-not-a-success-but-mileage-made-feels-sangh-1927816.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2010/jan/07/v-muraleedharan-is-bjp-state-president-119545.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2019/jul/28/uninspiring-leadership-fails-to-curb-rampant-factionalism-in-kerala-bjp-2010476.html
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/bjp-gears-up-for-organisational-polls/article7693992.ece

All these reliable sources mention him deeply and he clearly pass WP:GNG so this article should be kept on its basis of WP:BASIC WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on these sources below.
[30][31] Both are covering an official visit by team of Railway officers.
[32] article about allocation of store in a city station.
[33] article about a political meeting and covering the statements of Das
[34] news about PM's speech
[35] news about Das's appointment as secretary.
[36] article on Entry of women to Sabarimala
[37] Doesn't even mention the subject in article.
[38] article on political infighting in the party.
[39] article about preparation of the party for polls.
None of these links suggested above are giving a significant coverage to Das by making him the subject of the article. DBigXrayᗙ 11:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Will Ferrell#Personal life. Clear consensus to delete, but redirects are WP:CHEAP -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viveca Paulin[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Notability is not inherited, JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 06:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 06:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The subject is obviously mentioned in a lot of articles, thanks to her husband, actor Will Ferrell, but I believe she fails WP:NACTOR. I'll defer to other editors regarding her career as an auctioneer. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:ENT. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Will Ferrell#Personal life. She does not pass WP:GNG right now so she should not have her own article, but her name is mentioned so frequently that it is likely people will look her up. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chahbounia Chelalet El Adhaoura[edit]

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

Taking to AfD after de-PROD by JaneciaTaylor. Original PROD rationale as follows:

This isn't a real place, it's a conflation of two different place names, which we already have individual articles on - Chahbounia and Challalat El Adhaoura. This should not be redirected to either, as it is not and has never been a valid place name in Algeria. It's an obvious editor error.

JaneciaTaylor de-PROD'd with the edit summary "Deprod because this article was made first before the article with the same name", which clearly indicates that they didn't read my PROD rationale, which explains that it is not a duplicate of one article, but an unintentional conflation of two place names.

Now, since it doesn't appear to be an intentional hoax, but rather an error made in good faith, I don't think it qualifies as G3, but if someone else disagrees and speedies it I'd be perfectly happy with that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and linked source, place does not exist. Reywas92Talk 03:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately there is no speedy for that, unless you think G3 (which is for blatant hoaxes) would apply here. Since it doesn't look deliberate I don't think it does, unfortunately. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:V. We all have made mistakes. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Either way, it should be deleted because it is not notable or encyclopedic because there aren't any sources about it besides hotel services. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 03:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyland furniture[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ORG. Some 50-year-old furniture store whose only apparent claim to notability is that it has a giant patio chair to attract customers. Closeapple (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winning a notable award might show that a subject is notable. Sunnyland furniture "received the prestigious Apollo Award on numerous occasions". There are several Apollo awards, but I think they mean the International Casual Furnishings Association's Apollo Award. [40] It is "prestigious" to the member of the ICFA, no doubt, but I can't find any news coverage of the award. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I can't attest to their quality, there are some news articles about Sunnyland in Google News that might be worth checking. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google news hits seem to be press releases. Dorama285 01:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Peer Google news articles not being good. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The overall participation is numerically somewhat split between keep and delete, with some arguing for a merge but with extremely limited agreement as to what a sensible target for said merge would be. However, there is significant lack of basis in policy for a lot of the delete arguments: WP:LISTN's requirement for the list concept itself, rather than just the parent topic, is a commonly-referenced and sensible guideline that many fictional list articles run afoul of: but several participants have repeatedly pointed out that there are reliable source articles that specifically discuss the concept of fictional badgers in detail. It is therefore very difficult to give as much weight to arguments supporting the statement that that isn't the case, without making effort to actually refute it. The article has been significantly trimmed during the debate, which also addresses some of the earlier concerns regarding the indiscriminate nature of it and the very valid argument that some of the content was gratuitous. Valid arguments were made regarding flaws in the execution of this article, which to a point have been rectified - but it does not seem that a consensus to delete the article based on policy has been produced here. ~ mazca talk 00:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional badgers[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Fictional badgers are not often discussed as a group. Also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as most of the fictional badgers listed here are random mascots or minor figures or background things in popular culture (a "badger saw" that's described as a weapon is a badger?). Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without weighing in on whether it officially passes muster, I've gotta say I'll be sorry to see this one go just because it's kind of hilarious. Even just the title "list of fictional badgers" cracks me up. LOL Come on, guys, can't we just ignore the rules just this once and keep this one? After all, you know what the The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger would say about the rules, don't ya? :P — Hunter Kahn 05:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep My joke above aside (though I stand by the joke because the subject matter does still kind of crack me up) I'm also formally changing my vote to Keep based upon the arguments of Masem, Andy Dingley and Masem. — Hunter Kahn 16:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because we don't need no stinkin' badgers. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You want to delete an article just so that you can make a joke? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because the nominator is right. Badgers, penguins, iguanas, lakes, mountains, etc. - doesn't matter in 99.9% of cases. Lists of fictional xxxs, with maybe a very few exceptions, aren't published in the real world, so they don't belong here either. The joke is just icing on the cake. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there's Dougherty's top 10 list, but that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I came across this article recently and was weighing up whether to nominate it as well. Interesting that the Wikipedia list article got a mention in a Guardian article but that alone isn't a reason to retain an article. Ajf773 (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have many lists of fictional characters by species or type. This is one that's had rather more attention put into it over time (just read the talk: page). There is no requirement that a list would have to include badgers which had already appeared together, it's listing them because they're badgers, and sometimes you're just trying to find the badgers which have appeared in fiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which, two of the sources already here are specifically lists of 'the best fictional badgers'. So what does 'Fails WP:LISTN' mean? We have sources on this as a list. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup The lede is actually fair justification to keep the list, but the list itself must be cleared of all entries that are unsourced or where the specific character lacks a standalone notable article. The list is too much WP:TRIVIA, but entries that can be sourced via a third-party reliable source is fine. --Masem (t) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: It looks like to me that only five of them actually have stand-alone articles, and one of those is Rock hyrax, which was likely what "badger" in the King James Bible referred to and I'm not sure if it meets the inclusion requirements. A lot of the bluelinks just redirect to the series or work they were in. Hog Farm (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are ones that aren't blue-linked but are sourced (eg the one from Fantastic Mr. Fox). Those are fine with the source. Its the other 90% that may have a blue-link notable work but no source about the badger in it, or the badget character being notable on its own. --Masem (t) 15:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although sourcing is always good, it's clear in our policy for list articles that per-entry notability is not required in lists.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said per-item notability. Per-item verifyability is, however. And because these are pop culture lists, they should be reliable third-parties that ID them. --Masem (t) 02:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With Erik's cleanup/removals and additions, I'd say this is now a good model list for how "List of fictional X" should be looked at: some type of established background (with sources) of broad use in fiction, and then blue-linked or sourced entries that follow in appropriate sections. --Masem (t) 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Light Merge to Badger#In popular culture. Only the lead section of this article, the overview of Badgers in fiction, is actually sourced, and could potentially be worth discussing. The rest of this list is just complete WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia that fails WP:LISTN. Without that massive wall of trivia, there really is no need for this to be WP:SPLIT from the main article on the species, which already has a pretty healthy section on the topic. The lead section of this article does have some useful sources that are not currently being used in the main badger article, so redirecting this there, and integrating those sources, would be a good idea. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's badgers in popular culture. This is badgers in fiction. They're not the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light merge to Badger#In popular culture per User:Rorshacma. There is not enough separate content to merit a separate list when the fancruft is removed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andy Dingley and Masem because there has been significant coverage about this. For example, in addition to the two list sources, the book Understanding Conflicts about Wildlife: A Biosocial Approach has a chapter called "Badger-Human Conflict" that discusses fictional badgers, "Fictional badgers have therefore played a central role in this process [of addressing the bovine-tuberculosis controversy] by providing journalists with a series of easily recognizable 'hooks' from which a complex and relatively obscure science/policy issue could be discussed without losing audiences' (and editors') interest in the story." I encourage editors to look past the unsourced listings (and remove them). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed unsourced listings, reducing the article by 66% and also added another list source, a list of fiction from the book RSPB Spotlight: Badgers as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added yet another list source, Badger by Daniel Heath Justice, which supports at least five listings (page preview is a little tricky). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Talk: as to why that blanking of the article was such a bad thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I am disappointed that my addition of Badger from Breaking Bad got shanked, the list is now a better resource after Erik's good work, pruning it to a manageable size. This is a bit different than badgers in popular culture (the first part of that section in Badger talks about badger myths, which do not belong here.) There is some duplication between the articles though when it comes to fictional badgers, which I'd prefer to avoid since this is inviting them getting out of sync. Badger does a better job of giving the fictional badgers it discusses context; this article is just a list. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, there is a lot of overlap of "in fiction" and "in popular culture"; I agree mythological badgers are not "pop culture", and there may be real life badger celebs that are not "fiction". But the areas for exclusion, particularly real-life badgers , are very very small relative to the overlap (Can't draw a good Venn diagram but hopefully that's clear). If there are any seriously usable real-life badgers that can be sourced, that's probably better on the page badgers than here, but all other uses in pop culture can probably fall her as "in fiction". --Masem (t) 16:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also fair point on BB's Badger, I added a See Also to the disambiguation page for those other "Badgers" that aren't badgers. --Masem (t) 16:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There are too many non notable badgers mentioned in this list, not to mention badgers that aren't even characters. May as well take the more notable ones to the list of mustelids. Deltasim (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement for entries in a list to pass WP:N. That is often why we have lists. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entries do have to pass WP:V, though, and self-referencing popular culture is not usually considered to be verified. If kept, the list will likely lose some entries due to that. The TV show or movie the badger is found in would be a primary source, which would usually not be enough for WP:V. Also, some of the entries don't actually appear to be badgers - the "badger saw" comes to mind. Hog Farm (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can verify something in the source material without problems. You don't need a reference for everything. This [41] revert is ridiculous since the title of one of the books the character is featured in is titled "Digger the Badger Decides to Stay", so you have no reason to doubt that a badger is in those books. The rule against primary sources is for people talking about themselves who might lie, nothing to do with media being used to verify things like this. Dream Focus 20:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added back in the one for the Tolkien [42] easily finding a review that mentioned the badger folks in it. Anyway, throughout history badgers have been used in fiction, this the same as the thousands of other "in popular culture" articles, so same arguments for keeping them all applies. Dream Focus 02:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 02:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it's clear that there's a lot of interest in improving this article -- this AfD discussion sounds more like an active article talk page discussion. I think the result of this AfD is likely to be that we'll end up with a more coherent, better sourced version of the article, which is a net plus. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an yet another random, indiscriminate list. Some days I wonder if we should just ban all list articles, and force instead including lists on articles on topic pages where the topic itself is clearly notable. Lists lead to indiscriminate inclusions of things not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to me it looks like snythesizing information to suggest it is a known topic but it's not.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOTESAL, this topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Furthermore, because the group or set is notable, individual items do not need to be independently notable. So WP:SYNTH does not apply here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Erik: this article relies on foklore representation as fiction. Which i believe should be challenged as standard fiction.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Folklore details only make up one paragraph of the lead section. There are multiple list sources that support the topic's notability in discussing fictional badgers as a group or a set. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage on Badgers is not worldwide or multi-regional. IMHO that is relevant. The BBC, The Gaurdian, and Wiley Online Dictionary are covering something that's only relevant to their region. To list every fictitious Badger in Wikipedia because one region is a hot topic related doesn't seem right.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you arguing that an article on WP should abandon our usual international viewpoint? Or that sources used to support an article must either support the whole article, or not be used at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just think the notability is relying on a remote situation to reflect an entire list of fictional Badgers regardless of location. the sources can still be used, but i don't think it's enough to justify a "List of fictional Badgers". I think it could easily fit into the actual Badger article.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 23:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is good-faith disagreement as to exactly whether this individual passes relevant notability guidelines. A significant amount of coverage has been provided, but participants appear very much split over whether it in aggregate passes WP:GNG. ~ mazca talk 00:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanathi Srinivasan[edit]

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

A state president of party, which does not make her notable. Even she was not elected in state and general election. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't being Secretary General for a regional party notable? She is mentioned in the press, by recognized secondary sources. PMCH2 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
because it is not considered a notable post to merit an article. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proposer is mistaken about WP:GNG, she appears to pass GNG based solely on the sources already included in the article. I would need a stronger rationale for why they feel she is not notable. IphisOfCrete (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL as the subject never won any assembly or national elections neither held any major public post to merit an article. The notability bar for the politicians is higher since they almost always get some amount of coverage as a candidate of a notable political party. DBigXrayᗙ 05:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - per WP:NPOL, WP:BLP1E, and WP:SOAP. Party officials are not automatically notable, and there is more coverage of her activism than politics per se. I'm concerned because we are not a soap-box. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus at this time, but even if party officials aren't notable just because, they can still meet WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share the sources that you are using to claim WP:GNG. It is expected that the participants post the link on AfD as evidence for their claims. I reviewed all the refs in the article again and I stand by my opinion above to delete. Passing mentions and mentions in article about party infighting or party events cannot be claimed as WP:SIGCOV DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. She seems to be regularly in the news offering commentary on political affairs but as you say much of that is passing and not in depth. The ones I’ve found that indicate she passes GNG are 1, 2,3, 4,5,6, 7 and 8. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Toughpigs and Goldsztajn have provided examples of coverage of the topic in reliable sources, which most of the editors who !voted delete did not seem to consider. The fact that they are not currently in the article or that the writing is lacking is irrelevant to the notability of the topic (WP:NEXIST). Everyone seems to agree that the article needs editing and pruning. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurs in popular culture[edit]

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

Totally unsourced and fails WP:POPCULTURE guidelines and WP:LISTN. Entirely a WP:OR example farm and unnecessary fork.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason described in the rationale:

Chimera in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 13:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP/close and put in other venue We had ample debates on whether "in popular culture" articles should exist are not years ago and they were all kept. Don't go through nominating them a couple at a time and dragging things out with endless debate. Just create a RFC somewhere about all of them at once. Search Wikipedia for "in popular culture", in quotation marks, and you get 34,969 results. Some of these are articles and some are just sections of articles. But this is a significant part of Wikipedia. Category:Topics_in_popular_culture Dream Focus 14:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Too many exist to delete individually" has never been a valid argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not sure an RfC would succeed, because some are actually valid articles and not fancruft collections.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be original research of extracting the mentions directly from viewing the source material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a load of old pony to me. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both articles are in need of significant editing, but the centaur article clearly contains several appearances in fairly notable works of literature, which seem significant enough to warrant discussion and inclusion. Many of the other entries may be notable as well. This nomination misapplies several policies in order to make it appear that the result is obvious: WP:Popculture does not discourage the existence of such articles, but clearly affirms that they can be perfectly valid articles, when properly conceived and maintained. The fact that an article requires more or better sourcing, or lacks appropriate citations in the first place, is not a justification for deletion; articles for which appropriate sources can readily be located should never be deleted simply because nobody has added them. WP:LISTN is also concerned with notability, not sourcing. The nomination also seems to ignore the fact that works of literature (film, television, etc.) are perfectly valid as sources for their own contents, which fact alone calls into doubt whether WP:OR is relevant to this discussion. WP:OR is mainly concerned with editors developing a synthesis or a novel hypothesis from sources that do not directly support it; not with failing to provide appropriate citations, or explain the significance of the facts cited, which is how it seems to be used by this nomination.
What should be added to this list is an explanation of the significance of centaurs in popular culture, or any available secondary sources discussing their appearances in the works cited. It isn't necessary that each individual mention be discussed in secondary sources, but there ought to be some secondary sources cited and discussed in the article, preferably both in the lead and at the beginning of some of the sections, or with particularly significant uses. The list should also be trimmed to remove passing mentions or trivial references—what constitutes each may be debatable, but presumably some of the inclusions aren't particularly notable, along the lines suggested by WP:Popculture. I.e. a character on The Simpsons being transformed into a centaur as part of the plot of an episode might be worth including, but a character mentioning a wild party attended by "centaurs, lapiths, and cyclopes" would not. Such a reference ought to cite the particular episode (book, etc.) when possible, and this would be sufficient to establish that centaurs appear; but the article as a whole should still include secondary sources mentioning the use of centaurs in popular culture. It is not necessary that each appearance in the list be bolstered by a secondary source.
But the bottom line is, this article appears to concern a notable subject, and presumably some secondary sources for that subject exist—pretty sure any book discussing the influence of Greek myth on the subsequent development of arts and literature would cover this topic to some extent. The policies cited affirm that articles of this type can and should exist, even though they have to conform to the same policies as other articles. Articles should be deleted when they cannot be improved through better sourcing, trimming, organizing, or editing. They shouldn't be deleted because they need a lot of work. P Aculeius (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have been unreferenced for an entire decade. Hoping that it will be rewritten is not a reason to keep the article in its current state. I have absolutely no prejudice against rewriting the article later - but the current article must go, per WP:TNT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, none of the examples of WP:TNT apply here, the problems seem much less severe to me (and the primary sources are implicitly there, though they should be made clear, of course). As you seem to be particularly concerned about the problems, I invite you to spend the time to improve these articles that no author found in past years. Daranios (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments brought forth by P Aculeius. Daranios (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Agreed the article needs a good amount of sources. But it is not FUBAR IMO and WP:TNT is not a guideline but an essay. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These should not be laundry lists of random appearances added by random users, but instead a discussion on the topic's overall usage in popular culture with major examples cited. The main article's section, while poor, is sufficient to cover the topic until such a time where it is proven that it's possible to actually do that for this topic. TTN (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to centaur...there shouldn't be any arbitrary cutoff between ancient and modern popular culture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters is one source which may help with the missing introductory section. It provides info about the role of centaurs in the olden days, but also has a short section about modern appearances. Similarly with the chimera. And if I have found one source, there are probably more. So again, I think the problems of this article are solvable. Daranios (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that should ultimately be explored in the main article first rather than keep this list for it to never be improved. No deadline applies to the creation of articles as well. We shouldn't be making articles before they're ready to stand on their own. I'm honestly unable to imagine the possible scope of Centaur when raised to a FA, but I feel it could easily handle four to six paragraphs on the topic as it currently stands. TTN (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm says "hoping that it will be rewritten is not a reason to keep the article in its current state", an argument which is not supported by WP:ARTN. The policy says: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." As I demonstrated, there are reliable sources with significant coverage on the topic of centaurs in popular culture, and the fact that the article should be rewritten doesn't affect the notability of the subject. I've added the above sources as a "Further reading" section, so that people who want to improve the article have some resources to do so. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Toughpigs and WP:HEY. While AfD is not for cleanup, this listing has alerted us to an article that needs improving. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does WP:HEY apply? That's for articles that have been significantly improved, and this one is still just a list of centaurs with no encyclopedic character. --Slashme (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 20:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • prune and merge back to centaur What this list says is that centaurs are a common-as-swords trope in fantasy literature. Possibly there are a few cases where they play a central role and appear as significant characters (I'm thinking Harry Potter for one), but for instance in Narnia they are simply stock fabulous beasts; every mention of them is not worthy of note. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article certainly needs major clean-up and work, but I am convinced by the sources provided by the keep voters that there is at least some amount of notability here and outright deletion would not be the best way. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is simply a list of trivia and not an analysis of Centaurs in popular culture. -- Whpq (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Note - there is no AFD notice for the Chimera in popular culture article -- Whpq (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up This article has issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, there are enough sources as already mentioned above to pass WP:GNG, also recall the WP:NEXIST guideline section. The biggest issue may be that a lot of those are tertiary like the compendia mentioned above and the specialty niche encyclopedias on literature, mythology, fantasy, and what-not that searches pull up, but those can be worked from. There are some calls for WP:TNT above, which is basically a claim that while the subject itself is notable it would be easier to start from scratch. However, upon a review of the article nothing wrong or hoaxy is jumping out, the existing content can be used as it can with some effort be sourced the key is that content be Verifiable, fixing articles in this case is usually faster compared to having to do the research all over again, and why remove attribution credit from those who've already started this. Merging back to Centaur is a viable option, as the pages are in the discretionary range from a size perspective. I don't see a compelling policy based reason to merge, however admittedly I don't see a compelling policy based reason not to merge either. Mostly it comes down to content organization and presentation. leaving separate is less work, especially given as these should both eventually be sizeable enough to require a separation which would then require a later spin-out, and perhaps a hair friendlier to some of our mobile viewers, so I come down narrowly on Keep instead of merge in this case. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to centaur: WP:TNT applies. As it stands, it's a laundry list of every kind of popular media that contains a centaur. This kind of thing could possibly be recreated as list of centaurs, but if this is to be created as an encyclopedic article, it should discuss the position of centaurs in popular culture with some selected notable appearances, and should have references to reliable sources that discuss the role of centaurs in popular culture at length. --Slashme (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dumping ground for unrelated trivia, largely unsourced. WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTPLOT apply. No indication of notability of this as a topic. Chimera in popular culture would need a separate nomination as it has not received an AfD tag. Sandstein 15:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider the four sources previously listed for the topic as a whole when forming the opinion "No indication of notability"? Daranios (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content of the article is irrelevant for the purpose here - question is whether the subject is notable and whether the subject constitutes OR. Sources cited above establish that there is body of academic research examining the issue. Simple JSTOR search reveals multiple relevant articles which could be utilised to elaborate.[1][2][3][4][5]. I could potentially see some merit in a discussion on the renaming of the article (eg Centaurs in contemporary literature and art)...but that's not the point of AfD.

References

  1. ^ Elam, Caroline (2009). "Piero di Cosimo and centaurophilia in Edwardian London". The Burlington Magazine. 151 (1278): 607–615. ISSN 0007-6287.
  2. ^ Pirott-Quintero, Laura E. (2000). "A Centaur in the Text: Negotiating Cultural Multiplicity in Moacyr Scliar's Novel". Hispania. 83 (4): 768–778. doi:10.2307/346447. ISSN 0018-2133.
  3. ^ Weidman, Jeffrey (1983). "William Rimmer: Creative Imagination and Daemonic Power". Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies. 10: 147–163. doi:10.2307/4104335. ISSN 0069-3235.
  4. ^ Lau, Chung Yim (2013). "Manga Drawing as Stereotyped Aesthetics". Visual Arts Research. 39 (2): 42–53. doi:10.5406/visuartsrese.39.2.0042. ISSN 0736-0770.
  5. ^ Myrsiades, Kostas (1978). "Classical and Christian Myth in the Cinema of Pasolini". College Literature. 5 (3): 213–218. ISSN 0093-3139.
--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, Goldsztajn has sources, but how do they apply to the topic's notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 02:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Centaur with a possible light merge. Sources show that there have been discussion regarding the use of centaurs in modern art/literature/etc. That is a valid topic. What the sources do not support is a massive, indiscriminate list of trivia, which is what this "article" is. Without all of the cruft, the topic could easily be incorporated into the main Centaur article without necessitating a WP:SPLIT into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Centaurs are a well-known mythological creature and have been extensively referenced in literature and movies etc. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is more an argument to keep centaur than centaurs in popular culture. If this article contained any serious treatment of the impact and relevance of centaurs in popular culture, that would be a different case, though. --Slashme (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Miraclepine: how do they apply to the topic's notability? - because they are independent RS examinations of the centaur in popular culture. Slashme: nobody disputes that the article needs clean up, but AfD is not the place for that.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just about cleanup: the article as it stands has no content except a list of trivia. Compare it for example with Macbeth in popular culture. There, the topic is discussed in detail, including its impact and relevance, beyond just a bare listing. This article, however, has no encyclopedic relevance. It's simply an indiscriminate collection of information, which is expressly something that Wikipedia is not. --Slashme (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said above: The examples mentioned in WP:TNT as reasons for deletion rather than improvement seem much more serious than the fact, the no special criteria for what to list here and what not have been applied. The fact that secondary sources have been found in a few instances shows that the current state of the article already contains information worth retaining. For what reasons should WP:TNT apply here? Daranios (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that there are no clear inclusion criteria, it's that the article at the moment is just a listing of characters in popular media who happen to be centaurs. That makes it an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no discussion of the topic or its cultural relevance. Anyone who wanted to write a proper article about the topic would have to start from 0. --Slashme (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST says "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." WP:ARTN says "If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." This is a badly-written article on a notable subject. If people are concerned about the writing in this article, then they should make edits and improve it, using the sources that have been provided in this discussion. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Toughpigs; conflating content with subject is not the point of AfD. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is not with the quality of the writing. It's with the fact that at the moment the article has the following text: "Centaurs appear often in popular culture." and "Centaurs have appeared in many places in modern fiction, and may be regarded as a fantasy trope. In modern literature differing views of centaurs vary with the author." and beyond that consists of a list of media containing centaurs as characters. There's nothing to save in the current article. It needs to be written from scratch. --Slashme (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compare to Macbeth in popular culture, which you have suggested yourself. That article contains sentences like e.g. "A cyberpunk version of Macbeth titled Mac appears in the collection Sound & Fury: Shakespeare Goes Punk." That's just the same as here "Centaurs based on the mythical creatures appear throughout the editions of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game as a monster or a race, with variants in different campaign settings." Instances of appearances in popular culture in my opinion are just as much a part of a good "...in popular culture" article as the (here still missing) analytical introduction. The question can be, if all, or which of the many instances provided here should stay, but some should stay to get a good article. So there are parts to save, and it would be easier to improve that article than to write a good one from scratch. Daranios (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that article lists appearances in pop culture, but as part of a contextualisation of the topic, whereas this article does nothing other than list appearances in pop culture. It's pure trivia, while the Macbeth article is a discussion of the topic with examples. --Slashme (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep -- this is a bad use of AFD to attempt WP:TNT outside a good reason for TNT: clean up the article-- contemporary treatment of centaurs, per the sources brought by this discussion, represent a substantial topic outside of their historical treatment. Sadads (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above: the "article" at the moment contains two sentences of prose which say nothing substantive, and a list of media containing centaurs. There's nothing to clean up. It needs to be written from scratch. --Slashme (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the definition of "substantive". You mean that they're not substantial, i.e. bulky, not that they don't set forth any facts. It's true that they're somewhat generic, but they introduce the topic. You want something meatier? Then write it—don't just try to dynamite the article because you regard all of the examples as unimportant. Individually they may be unimportant, but collectively they show just how influential the theme has been. A bare list still has value to the extent that you can use it to develop the article, find examples, use them to improve it. Simply deleting it means losing a host of examples that might be useful to readers as-is, and certainly could be made more useful with work. Your solution would prevent that from happening—if you're not willing to improve the article, I can't imagine you making a new one from scratch. If there's so little here, surely it would be easier to revise and improve it. Plenty of experienced editors have said that they see value and potential in this article, so why are you so determined to delete it entirely? P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me what I meant, but you're wrong. I really did mean that the two sentences don't say anything substantive. I wasn't saying that they were too short or not bulky enough, but in fact that they didn't set forth any facts. The lead paragraph of the article says that centaurs appear in pop culture, which is what the title of the article already says, and the second sentence says that they appear in fantasy literature, dubiously claiming that they're a "trope". That is not substantive. --Slashme (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those are by definition facts stated by the article, so it clearly says something "substantive". Whether the word "trope" is correct—or appropriate—is another matter, but the statement that centaurs are a trope of fantasy literature is again, "substantive". Your entire argument confuses the question of whether the article is notable with whether it's well-written: basically you're just arguing that the article should be deleted because it isn't very good, which as several editors have already pointed out, isn't a valid reason for deleting it. Your rationale seems to be that it can't be improved, but several editors have pointed out the availability of reliable sources that could be used to improve it, and ways in which individual items could be properly cited. All we know about your argument is that you don't want to improve it. So if you don't intend to improve the article, why waste time making an argument for deletion based on policies that don't support deletion? P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it isn't a badly-written article, it's a collection of trivia. It doesn't absolutely have to be deleted, it's also OK to redirect it to the main article until such time as someone decides to put in the effort to write an article on the topic, and that way this stuff can stay in the history for a later editor to use. Another reasonable option would be to rename the article to list of centaurs and manage it like any other list. --Slashme (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of random mentions of centaurs. One should not keep such an obvious WP:OR. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:38, 25 February 20
The primary sources are there implicitely in the text, so for the most part we can be pretty sure this is not original research. They should be made explicity by directly giving the references, and ideally adding secondary sources, but that's a matter of improving formatting rather than WP:OR. To make this even clearer, please Wikisaurus have a look at the Futurama and Dungeons & Dragons entries at the beginning of that AfD. According to your assessment, these should be "obvious WP:OR". If you look at these entries now you see that they have been provided with secondary and/or primary sources references, proving that they were not OR in the first place. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, clearly not original research—works of literature, music, film, television, etc. are perfectly valid as sources for their own contents. They just need to be cited appropriately, and the fact that citations aren't specific enough isn't a valid reason for deletion—citations can easily be improved. P Aculeius (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラP 18:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gore (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable child actor that doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. If I saw the citation of IMDb, considering it unreliable. Last month, I nominate this entry for deletion, but there's no consensus due to lack of WP:BLP. Ni3Xposite (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This nomination, only one week after the previous AFD was closed as No Consensus, is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This was just closed as a "No Consensus", although three out of the four votes were to "Keep" and there was no policy reasoning provided for the sole "Delete" vote. I have no idea why this has been nominated again. I am voting "Keep" again for the reasons I provided in the initial AfD. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see the problem. He gets coverage. He was sixth-billed in a Woody Allen film (Wonder Wheel) just under Kate Winslet and Jim Belushi. He's got a recurring role on Billions. Variety said that 2018 was "a huge year for Gore". What is the argument for delete? -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invitation to John Pack Lambert, Watchbotx and PK650 to participate in this AfD. They, along with me, voted in the original AfD. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is weird. I seem to remember there was clear consensus to keep in this case, but I didn't follow up. In my opinion there's enough coverage ([43], [44], [45]) to warrant an article. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable television series and films as confirmed with coverage in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we still do not have the level of sources we need to justify having an article on a minor. We should respect people's, especially minors, privacy, and not create articles without good quality sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Pack Lambert, there are Variety sources, Deadline sources, and more. Sure, the article itself could be worked on, but surely the existence of these reliable sources would meet WP:GNG? Dflaw4 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as the subject appears to lack significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the site's notability requirements AustralianRupert (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Fernandez[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson, no significant sources, very promotional at that. Can’t find any RS in more expansive source searches. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kollam Municipal Corporation. There seems to be consensus that this Mayor is not notable. Redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. Rajendrababu[edit]

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

The only claim is mayor of Kollam which is not enough for her passing notability guideline. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Don't know what forced you to do all these things spontaneously. Such a massive activity! Anyway I wish to help you by giving a big list to continue.

  • Category:Mayors of Thrissur - Full list of articles can be deleted as they all contain only "Mayor" info, nothing other than that
  • Category:Mayors of Mumbai - Most of the articles contain only "Mayor of Mumbai" info
  • Category:Mayors of Delhi - Most of the articles contain only "Mayor of Delhi" info

Expecting the same from your side after reviewing all these articles.

Arunvrparavur (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. I agree that the nomination is failing to make accurate points. Orientls (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Orientls: Can you explain how does the article meet WP:GNG, please?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections. just being a mayor does not entitle the subject to get an article. DBigXrayᗙ 06:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the article is a bare minimum. His policies in the post of mayor of Kollam however receive regular coverage from major news agencies which should pass him for WP:NPOL.[1][2][3] Tayi Arajakate (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/free-water-connection-to-houses-in-kollam/article26412683.ece
  2. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/model-plan-completed-ahead-of-schedule/article29663944.ece
  3. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/a-social-safety-net-for-kollam/article29577834.ece
  • Tayi Arajakate, Thanks for participating. I have reviewed all these 3 articles, and found that none of these 3 articles are covering the subject. They are routine articles about the work of Municipal corporation with minor passing mention of the mayor or his statement as its office bearer. so these sources does not meet WP:GNG. DBigXrayᗙ 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the articles are policies implemented of the Kollam Municipal Corporation of which he is the executive head. The mentions are attributable in nature. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate, but we need articles with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) and not passing mentions or one liners. DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, but the article is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2. The notability test for mayors is not that their name gets mentioned in the routinely expected local coverage of local politics — they have to be the subject of a significant volume of sourcing, not just a name that shows up in some news articles, to get over the bar. But conversely, just because you can show a small blip of coverage about him specifically in the context of his initial selection as mayor doesn't get him over the bar either, if you can't show sustained coverage about his work in the mayor's chair. That's not how notability works when it comes to mayors: we're looking for substantive content about his political significance, not just technical verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the proposition that the elected executive of a city of more than 300,000 people would not have received any significant media coverage is, on its face, highly implausible. Nobody has suggested how such an unusual situation might have come about, and per Tayi Arajakate, there seems to in fact be ample coverage even in English-language sources alone. The Malayalam version of this article has attracted 6 references (all of which are also conveniently in English). No BLP issue is apparent. The arguments for deletion appear to be classic examples of reading policy upside-down; the fact that someone does not qualify for a presumption of notability does not mean, and has never meant, that an article about them is presumed deletable. The idea that articles about what a person does as mayor do not qualify as "significant" because they are only about the person's actions rather than the person in themselves is bizarre sophistry. -- Visviva (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Wikipedia does not keep articles just because we assume that better sources probably exist than anybody has actually deigned to locate — while it's true that a poorly sourced article can be kept if better sources can be found, we only consider the sources that are shown to exist, not sources that are merely speculated about.
And secondly, saying that "the idea that articles about what a person does as mayor do not qualify as "significant" because they are only about the person's actions rather than the person in themselves is bizarre sophistry" is not a mic drop — you're literally arguing against a strawman with that one, because literally nobody even said that in the first place. The three sources shown above are about neither "him as a person" nor "his actions", but just mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about other people, which is not the same thing as sources that are about him — and the sources present in the article just offer cursory verification that he exists, which is not the same thing as sources that cover his mayoralty in a sustained way. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a marginal case. We tend to keep mayors of cities over 1 million, or state capitals, automatically. For cities of 250,000 or less, we tend to delete pages about their mayors. What do Indian Wikipedians think? Bearian (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearian, considering the Indian population (1.3 billion) we would need to be far more stricter in our criteria for Indian mayors as compared to the one used in other cities. This city currently has a population of 0.3 million which is less than 1 million. So this clearly fails. DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a suitable article about the municipal corporation should be good here. Mayors in India are generally heads of the municipal corporation body. This is important information to keep, but not necessarily as a standalone article. May I suggest to redirect this article to a page about the Kollam Municipal Corporation?--DreamLinker (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Kollam Municipal Corporation, per DreamLinker's proposal. There is no sign of significant coverage so he does not pass WP:GNG, and he also has not won any state-level elections, so he fails WP:NPOL. The article seems unlikely to grow beyond a stub, and the information could easily by included in the "Mayors" section of the Kollam Municipal Corporation-article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of north-south roads in Toronto#Meadowvale Road. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowvale Road[edit]

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

Redirect to List of north-south roads in Toronto#Meadowvale Road The article has no claim to WP:GNG (with no reliable sources) and is more minor than other Toronto streets with articles which were redirected or deleted. Username6892 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. The notability test for roads, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, is not passed just by describing the road's physical characteristics, or even by listing things that happen to be on or near it — the notability of a road is established by writing an article which provides historical, political or social context for the road's significance, referenced to published media. Frex, a road might be notable if it has had one or more books written about its history, the way Yonge Street or Broadway have — but a road is not notable if your only sources are maps and the "how to get here" directions on the self-published primary source websites of the things in the "attractions and points of interest" list. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect. Fails WP:ROADOUTCOMES, but this would not make a good redirect. A quick Google search also brings up roads with this name in Nova Scotia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New South Wales, and others. The redirect would be ambiguous, and this road fails the notability guidelines for roads. Hog Farm (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving the page to Meadowvale Road (Toronto) and then redirecting should be fine. Username6892 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with that solution. I don't believe a redirect at Meadowvale Road should be left in any form, so the redirect from the page move would have to be cleaned up. Hog Farm (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, there should be a Meadowvale Road of some sort, even if it's just a disambiguation page ... but if we don't need a disambiguation page, I'm puzzled why it wouldn't still exist as a redirect as it's surely the most likely search term for this artery. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would only leave it as a disambiguation page if the other Meadowvale Roads are notable enough, but I don't think there are any mentions of them on Wikipedia.Username6892 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If none others are notable, surely the simpler form is the more likely search term. Nfitz (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of north-south roads in Toronto#Meadowvale Road. That section already exists, and this is a major artery. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Sinha[edit]

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

The person was not elected as a parliamentarian or a legislator. Even, 23 sources make it WP:REFBOMB. Some about its candidacy, some are self published etc. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SOAP. Party officials are not automatically notable, but there is some coverage about this national, major party official. I am concerned that we avoid becoming a soap-box. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearian, BJP has 12 Vice presidents, 8 National Joint Secretaries, 3 Jt. Gen. Secretary, 13 National Secretary. And in that pecking order. Although the name sounds like a big Kahuna, this is a lower post in the ranking. May I request you to review your opinion. DBigXrayᗙ 20:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian Thanks for your comment. The sources present here are
  1. First 10 are about president of BJP's state unit. (1, 3, 10 self published; 2, 4, 5 about sworning as BJP state unit president; 6, 7, 8, 9 interview and others). These made the article WP:REFBOMB.
  2. The sources present here in political career are typical election type coverage of subcontinental newspaper.
  3. The first source of controversy are not encyclopedic according to me. A person's relatives can support any party why he/she will face criticism for this? And the last sources about his controversies about his comment which are not enough for our notability guideline. I hope you will change your stand!S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. P. Mukundan[edit]

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

The article's reference makes in WP:REFBOMB. The person was not elected as a legislator or parliamentarian. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian Being a member of the BJP National executive committee is not a notable post, there are more than 200 members in this committee as mentioned on the party's official website--DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kennard F. Bubier[edit]

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

No evidence of notability other than as a recipient of the Navy Cross. Undoubtedly a prestigious award but without anything else, it doesn't amount to notability. Fails WP:GNG JaneciaTaylor (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All I can find is that he was awarded the Navy Cross. Unless that is an automatic grant of notability under a special notability guideline, he does not appear notable based on coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. I found sources for the fact that a mount in Antarctica was named after him, and that he had a role int he 1930 film With Byrd at the South Pole. The bare minimum now exists to keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article about a guy which only has one of his accomplishments (Navy Cross), few sources from the military (which means he probably isn't notable), and two paragraphs (stub article). Analog Horror, (Communicate) 00:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NCO with a single second-level gallantry decoration. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Navy Cross is a second-level decoration, so you need more than one to pass WP:SOLDIER. However he may qualify due to participation in the Byrd Expedition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I think we have to apply at least some selectivity on the members of the Byrd expedition, otherwise we may end up building pages for the expedition's cooks and janitors. That said, perhaps he did something on the expedition that went beyond being a mechanic. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7:, I have found a few more sources and changed to keep. See comment above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to what ThatMontrealIP listed, he also has the Byrd Antarctic Expedition Medal from here. I also think he went a bit further in the service than indicated; this source indicates that he made lieutenant colonel. His mentions in Gbooks is mostly in passing. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Vernon:, I thought the Google books source Little America: Aerial Exploration in the Antarctic, the Flight to the South Pole. was a little better than passing mentions. I can't see the whole of it, but it seems to mention him frequently as a central member of the team. I found one 1930s newspaper article, but suspect there are others. The feeling I get is that this was big news then, and he was part of it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: Hmmm, I took a closer look and I would agree. The Leatherneck magazine also seemed to give him a nice write-up. Keep, I think he meets GNG. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think with the Byrd expedition he meets WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Auxiliaries[edit]

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

All the sources are broke or unreliable. A search for more references yielded nothing of use, in fact nothing at all.(I created a search to try and remove the military and other unrelated ghits) The award for best band was only a local award that did not give them lasting notability and they broke up the year after to concentrate on uni studies. Mattg82 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't pass WP:GARAGEBAND, because the sources link to discography sites, press releases, and one of them links to myspace, which is obviously a primary source. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 00:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They got a few local gig reviews and minor mentions of an album release, but I don't think that satisfies the requirements for non-trivial coverage at WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They are among a large number of bands of this ilk who got Wikipedia articles when they emerged during the last heyday of this style of music, which happens to be the same time vast numbers of articles were being started with little or no sourcing about non-notable subjects (I was as guilty of this as anyone). That so many such articles were written is partially an example of systematic bias but is also an accident of history (the establishment pushing bands like this - while their fans denied the fact - on an "anything but So Solid Crew" principle just at the time that Wikipedia was exploding in size with little oversight). Most were only marginally notable at the time and have turned out to have even less notability, and many have been deleted. This should go the same way. The bands of that time who were successful enough to be lastingly notable will have multiple sources beyond long-dormant MySpace pages (not a reliable source even in its heyday) and the like. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_February_15&oldid=942659045"