Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 February	21 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Per cleanup work by Toughpigs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahitian Terrace[edit]

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

Unsourced for 11 years. Should be either deleted or merged to former Disney attraction. p b p 23:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to List of former Disneyland attractions#Adventureland. My search on Newspapers.com turned up one- or two-sentence mentions of this restaurant (e.g., [1][2]), but no significant coverage. My Google search also turned up a few mentions, like this blog post, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I note that the restaurant's successor, Aladdin's Oasis Dinner Show, already redirects to List of former Disneyland attractions. I don't think there's any content from this micro stub that's worth merging. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I rewrote the article using the following five books and two magazines as sources:
- The Disneyland Encyclopedia by Chris Strodder, Santa Monica Press (2017)
- The Disneyland Story: The Unofficial Guide to the Evolution of Walt Disney's Dream by Sam Gennawey, Keen Communications (2014)
- Secret Stories from Disneyland: Trivia Notes, Quotes and Anecdotes by Jim Korkis, Theme Park Press (2017)
- The Disneyland Book of Lists by Chris Strodder, Santa Monica Press (2015)
- The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History by Bill Cotter, Disney Editions (1997)
- Disney News Magazine volume 7 issue 4 (Fall 1972)
- The E-Ticket issue 39 (Spring 2003)
- There's also coverage of the Tahitian Terrace in the book Eat Like Walt: The Wonderful World of Disney Food by Marcy Carriker Smothers, Disney Editions (2017), but I don't own the book, so I've added it to the article in a Further reading section.

I believe that this is enough to demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for providing these sources Toughpigs. It looks like my local library has a few of these books; I may have time over the weekend to stop in and skim through them. I've struck my !vote for now until I can evaluate whether these sources provide significant coverage. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, interesting/useful/encyclopedic article now, at least. --Doncram (talk) 05:42, 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 Server Sundaram (2020 film). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bijesh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR. The only coverage available in English consists of softball interviews, routine casting announcements, and PR related to Server Sundaram. I wasn't able to find any coverage of the works written under the subject's pen name. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Server Sundaram (2020 film) as most media coverage is related to his role in the film. --DragoMynaa
Merge with his grandfather Nagesh. Also draftify if Drago wants to (and can) expand it further. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aishana Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ,WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR .Did not have has had significant roles in any of the TV serials and was replaced in early in Santoshi Maa Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG either. I'll defer to others as regards her modelling career. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant works to show. Passing roles in episodes. Not satisfy WP:NACTOR. The9Man | (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniity[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Of the references currently in the article, #1 is a fairly substantial profile by The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com), a website which features (a) wild conspiracy theorising on UFOs and aliens, 9/11 trutherism, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, autism, esoteric religions, politics, etc., and (b) articles on transgender issues, sexuality, and sex work. (Check out this archived front page, selected at random:[3]) I am aware that reliability depends on context and that a source may be reliable for some topics and not others, but am inclined to think that the website as a whole lacks responsible editorial oversight. I've just realised that that profile is largely plagiarised from Wikipedia: compare [4] (published in March 2007) with the WP article in February 2007.

The other references are primary sources such as interviews, self-published content, databases, and award rosters; please note that porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only tabloid coverage and listicle blurbs. Cheers, gnu 57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Updated 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Two AVN Awards, induction in AVN Hall of Fame, and Tranny Award for lifetime achievement is more than sufficient to establish notability. Policy based arguement: the award section makes the subject pass WP:ANYBIO. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy and guidelines say no such thing. Porn awards no longer count toward notability now that WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated, and notability claims per WP:BASIC, WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO must be attributable to independent reliable sources. Winning porn awards rarely satisfy that requirement. A quick look at the article shows that most of the sources are junk, as the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k and The Drover's Wife: WP:ANYBIO states: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Two notable porn industry awards makes the subject pass first requirement. One hall of fame induction from same notable organisation, and one "lifetime achievement" award from another notable awards makes the subject "sort of" pass the second requirement. I am not sure what non-porn industry award can be won by a pornstar, but certainly not Turing award. If one is expecting a noble or Turing for a pornstar, then yes, the subject fails notability. We absolutely shouldn't use WP:COMMONSENSE because the subject hasnt won Turing award. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this argument is that there was explicit acknowledgement in guidelines that these awards constituted notability and then that consensus was explicitly revoked in an RfC. It's hard not to conclude that a consensus that those awards don't constitute notability in their own guideline as also meaning that there's consensus that they don't constitute general notability as "a well-known and significant award or honor" either, since that would defeat the purpose of the RfC in the first place. I'm conflicted in these cases: I think quite a few of these people, if you did an objective assessment (say, if you were going to create your own publication), probably notable, but reliable third-party source coverage of pornography-related topics is as a whole so abysmal that reliable source coverage just doesn't exist here. If the most we can say about them is that they won a porn award, cited to the awards site, and we can't find anything else about them in reliable sources apart from a handful of random facts usually also cited to questionable source, I think I lean to the position that they probably shouldn't have articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement for WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT requires acknowledgment from an independent and credible source. Winning a porn award generally does not get the performer significant coverage from independent reliable sources. That's why PORNBIO was deprecated in March 2019 and why every appeal to ANYBIO since then has failed at AfD. Even the "Oscars of Porn" gets independent RS coverage mainly for the AVN Expo. That coverage generally does not cover award winners. As for the Turing Award, the award and its winners generally get RS coverage, as a cursory GNews search will show. Commercial industry awards, porn or mainstream, are generally industry self-promotion. There are a rare few that get independent RS coverage as achievements. Porn industry awards are not among those few. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of a troubling rationale for these choices, because there are plenty of fields in which absolutely significant awards aren't exciting that they'll get substantial media coverage, and I would be vehemently resistant if someone tried applying that logic on those articles. I feel like a better differentiation is that usually those people still have WP:RSs of some sort about them, and the award is a good sign of their particular significance; the same might well have been true here except that the general sourcing is utterly absent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k and The Drover's Wife: thanks for your input guys. You see, you've presented my exact thougts. People from the porn industry rarely get attention of mainstream media. After deprecation of PORNBIO, there were many AfDs of pornstars. But I didnt comment there. However, this subject has won two awards for performances. I agree its not a big deal, and we can overlook that (per the arguments in deprecation of PORNBIO). But hall of fame induction, and lifetime achievement (from different organisations) is a big deal. If it was just one of them, I dont know, but two does establish notability. This is the general reason why we have SNGs in first place. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick count shows that 15 members of the AVN Hall of Fame have been deleted from Wikipedia since PORNBIO was deprecated, and one, Janet Jacme, was deleted shortly before PORNBIO was deprecated. After 13 years of PORNBIO, the new consensus is that porn industry honors are not enough to excuse subjects from needing good references, despite the systemic bias. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are enough claims to notability that its plausible sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists if someone had access to the right sources, but a thorough online search turned up precisely nada. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Adult industry awards no longer count towards notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting subject, but there's not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC nor is there sufficient evidence of passing WP:ENT. While the publisher of the Agora Cosmopolitan article cited meets the WP:RS standard, the article sources too much of its content from the subject to be considered independent. It's more than most porn bios get, but that's not enough to establish notability. Other coverage, cited in the article or found in independent searching, is pretty much what the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A major chunk of the Agora Cosmopolitan article was copied directly from Wikipedia: for instance, the line Vaniitys' appearance is extremely feminine and even her voice is feminine(which is natural), She claims not to have had any femininity surgeries. was added to the WP article in 2006, and appears word-for-word in the 2007 AC article. Cheers, gnu 57 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Vaniity fails notability guidelines by a wider margin than I thought. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James Ferraro#Partial discography. In the absence of reliable sources, redirect is a sensible option. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rerex[edit]

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

tried to redirect but was reverted. album isn't notable as a standalone, no coverage in reliable sources. fails WP:NALBUM and should be deleted and redirected. Bundling with others because they don't appear to be notable as a standalone. Praxidicae (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to James Ferraro#Partial discography. Rerex is a reissue combining some previous work into a single release with only one source in the article which reads more like a release announcement and is not substantial coverage. I could not find any other coverage. The Clear album has no coverage of substance either. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is of just as much importance as Clear is and both have enough sources to create a Stub-quality article. They are both of importance in the context of James Ferraro. Eggswowdamn )talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 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. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CEL-SCI Corporation[edit]

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

(Version at time of AfD Nomination—Diff vs. current version)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRITE: provided sources are either primary (2, 3, 5, 6), trivial/routine (1, 7, 8, 11), or published in business publications of dubious reliability and independence (4, 9, 10, n.b. that 9 explicitly discloses that they were solicited by the subject to write the report, and thus decreases my willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to other borderline sources). Searching online turned up more of the same _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under the GNG considering the quality of sourcing. Also, it was created and mainly edited by a user who might have a connection to the subject and created couple of other closely related articles of questionable notability. So, taken as whole I think it should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also included a source and I think it is far more better then the original state. Also, I read general guidelines mentioned above and it seems meeting the general criteria. I am no expert was just searching about Multikine and landed here and it is interesting. I'll do some more research and add. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.111.218 (talk) 19:26, 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. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, Nevada[edit]

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

Also

Site of a former ranch, can't find evidence either is or was a community or is notable. Linked sources not useful. McCarran does not even appear on topo maps, and Patrick may have been the name of the train siding at Patrick's ranch. [5][6] Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patrick and McCarran. "Nevada Place Names" says that Patrick was a "non-agency station" on the SP RR and that Patrick is "at the McCarran Ranch". Carlson's references are David Myrick, who wrote about railroads, a Southern Pacific timetable and p. 297 of "Our Nevada," (1940) by Effie Mona Mack. I don't have access to these references, but two of them are railroad-specific. I found no evidence that Patrick was every anything more than a station and as it is non-notable, WP:STATION applies to Patrick. The McCarran Ranch is part of a Nature Conservancy site. BTW - McCarran common name around Reno, the main ring road is McCarran Blvd. and there is McCarran International Airport, all presumably honoring Pat McCarran, the son of the founder of the ranch. I agree that the satellite images show very little current activity. My newspapers.com account expired, so I can't check there. "Nevada Post Offices", (Gannett and Paher) do not list a Post Office at Patrick or McCarran, the nearest Post Office seems to be Tracy Clark Rural Branch Post Office (historical), which is about three miles east of Patrick. "Nevada Place Names" has no entry for McCarran. Cxbrx (talk) 21:04, 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 delete. Routine assault. WP:NOTNEWS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Regents Park stabbing[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, unlikely to have a lasting effect - WP:LASTING. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Let us wait and see for about a week. Sachi Mohanty 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs)

This is article is an example of why WP:NEVENTS says, "Don't rush to create articles". At this point, authorities have discounted terrorism as motive.[7] Notability is not speculative, and an article should not sit around in main space in hopes of its subject becoming notable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed WP:ROUTINE murder attempt (thankfully), will be WP:NOTNEWS within a week. We're not "London Action News This Morning", so please stop creating articles about everyday crimes that we have to waste time trying to remove from here. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE. Not regarded as a terrorist event. This is Paul (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a few days until more information has been released. Event has little to no information in circulation at this time. Danevanparker
Wait - the news is full of it at the moment, so it can't do any harm to leave it for a week, after that, if no new news has come out, delete it. Sir Magnus (talk) 17:58, 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. Looks like there is now sufficient sourcing presented to support the keep votes. Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Bengal the Real Power[edit]

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

non encyclopedic article about a football fan club. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, it is one of the biggest and first registered fan club in India. I have used sources for all the data. How can it be encyclopedic? what are missing, excess or wrong in the article? how to rectify them? ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First step is to remove the name dropping. Second is to to reconsider whether the material in section 4 is appropriate to an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, ok. i will remove the name dropping. and the section 4 "Other initiatives taken" are the works done by the fan club. ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I removed the name dropping. ❯❯❯ S A H A 14:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Bengal F.C.#Supporters and rivalries - does not merit a standalone article. Giant Snowman 20:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, so, what to add or rectify to qualify it as article standalone article. see this article, West Block Blues is way to short with just 1 section, still qualifies as a standalone article. ❯❯❯ S A H A 12:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with several good sources which indicate that the supporters group passes GNG. It needs expanding/improving, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect West Block Blues, I don't know why people voted on that to be separate, it's still a joke of an article and should be merged in to Bengaluru FC. This article doesn't really have much too it, it should also be merged. I don't see independence away from the primary subject. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, this is the 1st, largest and one of the most active fan group in India, among all the clubs. i am gathering more info and references for the article. ❯❯❯ S A H A 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs a lot of copyediting but passes WP:GNG even with just the references listed in the article after dis-including the unreliable ones. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Bengal F.C.#Supporters and rivalries. Some content may be salvageable but it's important to consider the marginal reliability of many Indian publications, plus the relative weakness of a football culture in the country. feminist (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist, these are reliable source, some of the top media companies in the country. i have used some international media sources also. so, there is no doubt regarding the reliability. football culture might be weak in the country, but not in West Bengal, or specifically Kolkata. Some of the oldest clubs in Asia are from Kolkata only (like East Bengal FC, Mohun Bagan AC), and the biggest derby in Asia is also the Kolkata Derby. ❯❯❯ S A H A 12:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be an example of systemic bias on wikipedia because if Times of India, Times Now and Telegraph are not considered reliable then no newspaper can be. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:BIAS, it's more of an unfortunate consequence of a general low standard across the board. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Times of India RFC. I'd say the same for China, though it has different problems. feminist (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a WP:BIAS if one is going to disavow any source from a particular country as it amounts to making the process arbitrary on non-international notable topics. Times of India shouldn't have any problems on non-political topics and it doesn't say anything about the other news agencies. Reliability should be seen on a case by case basis and not as a blanket statement. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't any one country, but all countries—certainly including the US, even the NYT. All news and general magazine sources sometimes print promotional material. It's the job of the PR profession to get them placed and written. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Last time it got deleted due to lack of sources. So, I have added many reliable sources, (like goal.com, toi, telegraph, etc). It is also notable, and not just a random supporter group. ❯❯❯ S A H A 15:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is your conclusion on this article User:ArnabSaha? You've made a lot of comments, but you've not "voted". Nfitz (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, since I created the article, obviously I will vote to keep it. ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people create articles but then vote merge or redirect before - with even the very occasional delete. I'd suggest doing so clearly, as some closers don't really pay enough attention and just count votes. Nfitz (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, ok ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article passes WP:GNG with all the references listed in the article and also as a Supporters' group, the East Bengal the Real Power is India's first officially registered supporter's group who are in existence from 2006 and have been under media highlight for more than a decade. The article is encyclopedic and is relevant for Football in India.-SabyaC (talk) 06:26, 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 Move to draft. Even the "keep" opinions admit a significant rewrite is needed before this is ready for mainspace, what with gems of prose such as "Balaja Abdurrahmanov was a broad-based scientist. He was truly a legendary man, a great scientist, a personality and always stood his ground." As to notability there is no consensus at this time. Sandstein 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balaja Abdurrahmanov[edit]

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

Something off here. Great and famous as he is made out here, does not pop on G-Books or Scholar. Inflated? Hyperbolick (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - it's hard to tell what we have going on here. One thing is clear - the language is either a poor translation, or just poor. There are no inline citations, just citations pertaining to each section. I say this should be taken to the Draft/sandbox space until it is ready. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up/stubify. He has an entry in Azerbaijan National Encyclopedia. I would remove most of it since the minutiae is excessive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and passed Russian and Azerbaijani Wikipedias, but a significant rewrite will be needed. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete: the Azerbaiijani encyclopedia entry is only a few lines; it doesn't seem authoritative in the way that an entry in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography would be. Lack of online presence could be old scholarship that hasn't been scanned in, but it could also be great inflation of the record of a nn academic. b uidhe 18:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Salavaithozlilalars Party[edit]

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

fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of sources discussing the subject. Existing refs are a blog and another site that did not give anything on the subject. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no reliable sources about this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tupocracy[edit]

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

new neologism, no evidence "Tupocracy" is a notable or even real term and this is all original research. The few sources that even contain the word aren't reliable and the rest make no mention of "Tupocracy" Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Used a total of one time by another Nigerian scholar in passing. All other mentions are blog posts promoting the inventor. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:23, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Films[edit]

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

Unreferenced articles and solid peacockery are addressable issues but I'm not convinced that this company meets WP:GNG. TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In fact, I don't see any at all. Even the two articles on films that are mentioned in the lead [Kohinoor_(2015_film)]] and Adam Joan don't mention the company. The only time it is mentioned is in the infobox of Ambili_(film), without a source, added by 2409:4073:207:18E5:0:0:20F:18A5, who also edited World Wide Films. Vexations (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally not notable. Whoever created it probably thought it would be by association with the films. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can find sources. Dorama285 (talk) 01:03, 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) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Dream Touch! Happy Anniversary[edit]

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

This game does not appear to be notable. The article does not cite sources. In my search for sources, I found Wikipedia clones and products listings (eBay, Amazon, etc - and not all too many of them) but not independent reliable sources covering the game. Eostrix (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement and not much else from WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. There has been plenty of time for decent sources to be added....hasn't happened.TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to have it's own JP Wiki entry and searching with the japanese name brought me only a WP:ROUTINE release and pricing announcement at [8] (besides the already mentioned IGN source where the game appears just as a name drop). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is one paragraph, and no sources. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 15:46, 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. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pulau Besar Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and ORG. Nothing in gnews for both English and Malay names. One would expect a museum that has been open for 9 years would get some coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I checked and found a couple of references but agree than nothing notable. Lonley planet guide was one. Another was a passing mention in a research handbook, but nothing demonstrates notability. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 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 merge to Zero (art). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZERO foundation[edit]

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

Google returns very little, GNews the same. Some small articles about the organization, like this, but I don't think there's notability even if Robert Rauschenberg used their place as a workspace. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I have added a few more citations. At a minimum, the content worth saving could be merged in Zero (art), since it is so clearly linked to Mack, Piene, and Uecker. Vexations (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think merge would be fine. The other article is notable enough, and clearly they are linked. Redirect to that section of the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:57, 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 speedy delete as promotional copyvio. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

0-INSTITUTE[edit]

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

I'm not turning anything up on GNews; Google itself returns some links to their site and Vimeo channel. That's it. Doesn't pass WP:GNG/WP:NORG Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 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 delete. Community consensus has now shifted against including "dumping ground" collection articles of in-universe descriptions of non-notable fictional elements from notable franchises. This AfD is one of many to illustrate this. Because of the concerns expressed, I'm not at this time unlinking backlinks or deleting redirects, so people who care can find another franchise-related article to redirect these search terms to. Sandstein 20:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Autobots[edit]

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

This list no longer has any utility. The series previously had somewhere between 600-1000 character articles. It now has 20. There are also around 20 character lists, so this is not a necessary navigational list. Autobot can hold a small list of blue links if that's actually necessary. This is just a barebones list of names, and even that is useless because most of these characters have two to three different versions due to most of these series being completely different continuities only sharing some core character concepts. Due to that, this cannot function as a proper navigational hub without being even more of a mess than its current incarnation. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP 20 blue links are enough to justify a list of this type. And the other lists are character lists for notable television shows. Dream Focus 14:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way do 20 articles characters justify listing 1000+? That's also 20 in total, so the number for this list is around half that, or less. This is also just an alternate way to categorize characters rather than a primary way, so all characters are already covered elsewhere. TTN (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CLN allows for lists to cover content also in categories. --Izno (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no longer an Autobot category. There is only the singular character category and the list category. The characters in the category are already covered on the various lists. This is simply an unneeded in-universe designation no longer relevant to the navigation of these articles due to the 2% retention of articles. TTN (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also want to point out that under List of The Transformers (TV series) characters there is a whole section of characters under "Autobots". This is just by checking out the first list on the lists page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be a long-form list and it should probably be the summary version (or possibly merge target, depending on which articles one might think should not be covered in stand-alone articles) of the remaining character articles. --Izno (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list has far too many circular redirects to justify having it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list has issues, but I don't think circular redirects are a fair basis for deletion. Those can be overcome with some simple edits. -2pou (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A fancrufty list that accomplishes no purpose for non-fans of the series and fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I see overlap here as we already have multiple lists for the characters in Transformers. Do we really need ones that include "By affiliation"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as pointed out by JPL, a bare list of names consisting of circular redirects serves no purpose- navigational or otherwise. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not all the character lists include affiliation information (see: List of Transformers comics characters). The number of blue links in the list isn't important - the topic of Autobots is notable, therefore not all members on the list of Autobots need to be notable. The reason there are a lot of circular links is because many deletion discussions ended as "merge to List of Autobots" and is not in itself a valid reason to delete the list. The idea that it's of no purpose to non-fans isn't a valid reason to delete either - it's a tautology that readers only have an interest in articles on subjects they're interested in.

Could the list be better organized? Yes. Would it be better if there was some inclusion criteria beyond existence? Probably. Nuking this list would make it extremely difficult create an improved version. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this and List of Decepticons get deleted, then List of The Transformers (TV series) characters will be the only article on Wikipedia to even mention the existence of any Transformers characters other than the 20 or so that still have articles (at least until List of The Transformers (TV series) characters is nominated for deletion as well). There are, however, hundreds of Transformers characters that never appeared on the TV series. There should be at least some list article mentioning them. JIP | Talk 15:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reasoning for keeping a mention of characters that do not appear in the TV series?Halbared (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Transformers is much more than a TV series. It's a toy line first, a comic book second, and a TV series third. Contrary to what you might think, the TV series is not everything Transformers ever was. JIP | Talk 08:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best you don't assume what I do or do not know about TFs. There is a page about TFs that links to a dedicated TFwiki for the detail. There doesn't seem to be a notable/valid reason put forward as yet for listing every TF.Halbared (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should list every Transformer, but it feels kind of artificial to limit the listing to those who appeared on the TV show, as I haven't seen any mention of the TV show being some authority over Transformers, especially since the comic book predated it. JIP | Talk 10:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Transformers comics characters exists. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to restate that we are not Wikia, the information is useless to new readers and fans alike if the content can not be properly presented from an outside point of view (WP:INUNIVERSE). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (extremely weakly) or worst-case Merge to one of the List of Transformers, if I have to pick one, let's say List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. Ideally, I'd rather say, Hold in a holding cell, but I don't know if that applies to AfDs or if that is exclusive to WP:TFD/H.
First let me say that I don't think this list is truly necessary. However, my reservations on deleting it are rooted in a pretty big overall procedural concern, and not one regarding the content (or potential content) of the list.
Checking the Talk page, at least 11 articles have gone to AfD and there was consensus to merge them into this list. I presume that there were also some that ended in a "Redirect" consensus as well, but I am not going to dig into that information to search for a number. Let's just go with "11+". 11+ articles were discussed through AfD alone, and the consensus among those discussions was that those particular articles did not merit a standalone article, but they were notable enough that outright deletion was not an acceptable solution, so a merge was to be done. I understand that WP:CCC, but I believe that would apply more to follow-on AfD nominations for specific articles. For a scenario such as this, we should at least WP:PRESERVE the data until a point at which someone can safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE. In my mind, it is VERY IMPORTANT to proceed carefully to reach that point. If this list is deleted, all of those Merge and Redirect articles are going to be automatically deleted along with this list via WP:G8. That is unacceptable. With the preserved data of those articles gone, a new target cannot be established easily. What is the point of Wikipedia operating on consensus-based policies if it cannot uphold the consensus?
In order to safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE I think at least those 11 articles should be evaluated for a suitable new merge location and retargeted before this list is deleted, or they can all go to RfD to get a new consensus there before this list is deleted. Ideally, that would really be done for all the AfD's that resulted in a Redirect, but that may be a little much to overcome. Regards, 2pou (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the existing redirects can't just be re-targeted now or when the AfD is done so long as it's noted for the closer. They'd be better placed in one of the lists with actual content anyway. And if there's currently no list for them, one can be made on whatever piece of media features them. TTN (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments there; I was mainly just suggesting that 11+ evaluations might be better served outside any 7-day high-stress, high-pressure (IMO) timelines that AfD generates amid people lives outside editing. If a note to closure works, that is fine too; I have just not seen that before. -2pou (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point, nearly every major iteration of the franchise already has coverage of their major characters, either as a separate list as shown at Lists of Transformers characters, or on the main article for the respective show/comic/etc. A massive list covering every Autobot, regardless of their notability, from a multitude of series, continuities, and timelines is not a useful way to present information that is already better presented elsewhere, and runs a bit afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I've seen all the different versions have their own pages, no argument has advanced this in-universe page should stay and it is very poorly and clumsily worded with no differentiation between the original TFs.Halbared (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trainwreck This really needs to be organized more like List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters where each character is introduced once from their original lines. List of autobots and List of decepticons can then merge to the List of Transformers AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Decepticons (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Decepticons might be of interest to this discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that three additional tags have since been added to that list since the last AfD closed in July 2019. I added the CFORK tag which at least one other editor agreed upon at: Talk:List of Decepticons#CFORK issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 27 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) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMP Technologies[edit]

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

Doesn't pass notability as nothing comes up in Google for it and the sources in the article are all trivial coverage. Also, edited by a single article editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on Google indicates GNG, and the article doesn't help. Dorama285 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company appears to have ceased operations sometime in 2019, but no independent reliable source took the effort to report that. Vexations (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article and references relying on the business owners' prior ventures and on routine announcements. I added the most substantial reference that I could find, a SiliconIndia item, but that is effectively a superlative-laden profile advertorial, and I am not finding better coverage of the firm through its lifespan. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Stencil[edit]

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

Recreated expired PROD from 2006, hasn't improved since, seems to fail NFICTION/GNG. Ping User:JaneciaTaylor who endorsed the prod before. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 20 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} 12:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Piotrus: I doubt that you will get a response, as JaneciaTaylor has retired. Meanwhile, Bob Stencil has never been meaningfully discussed by journalists or scholars. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:12, 27 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 Wildcats (comics). RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Orange (Wildstorm)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The de-PROD only added primary sources. TTN (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Wildcats (comics)#3.0 cast, which already summarizes the character sufficiently. Article has existed in this poor state for 14 years, so obviously no one wants to work on it to make it not fail NOTPLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Wildcats (comics). The character does not appear to be independently notable, and there does not appear to be anything in the way of reliable, secondary sources discussing him, so there is no need for any kind of retention or merging. However, as the character is covered in the article on the team already, a redirect there would be reasonable. Rorshacma (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above proposal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The previous AfDs seemed to hinge on the usage of D&D inspiration in other similar games, but that rationale seems lacking. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the usage of D&D monsters in other publisher's books, such as Paizo, could be considered independent (which I, personally, don't think they are, as they were being used under Wizard's Open Gaming License), they are still not actual coverage about the creature that would denote notability. They are simply in-universe usages of the creature within the game. Outside of game books, the only coverage this creature gets are a few brief mentions in "top ten" style fluff pieces, which are not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Likewise, the dearth of coverage would indicate that this particular version of the creature is not notable enough to be mentioned on the article on the mythological creature, so merging is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, failing that, merge and redirect: The Monsters Know What They're Doing has four pages on the lamia, including - aside from the game-use analysis that book always provides - quite a bit about creative origin and typisation. There is the extensive ENworld article cited in the article, and it seems Rorshacma found a few minor mentions. Of Dice and Men also mentions it in a humorous context, but only quotes the description from a primary source. So there are secondary sources. If these are not deemed enough for keeping its own article, it should be merged and redirected e.g. to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters or the lamia article, because loosing the information present has no benefits, while those articles are lacking that information. Daranios (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That ENworld source is not an article - its a forum post, and not a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, in contrast to the notable mythological being. Fails WP:GNG and is pure gamecruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnDcruft. No need for any redirect, a link from a disambig will be enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AKVA Group[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG guidelines. The only sources are primary and have to do with their products and everything in Google search seems to be trivial. Plus, the page is essentially just a list of their products and really nothing else. Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Gnews just reveals press releases. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a fraud and a scam but I am not sure. I doubt the company really exists. They are trying to solicit me to get me to represent them and alarm bells are ringing. Very sophisticated and these crooks should be reported if you find it to be fraudulent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.230.76 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Management Group, LLC[edit]

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

Totally not notable company. It was only around for a few years and there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there to give it in-depth coverage. Also, the paragraph in the article is directly copied from the article on it's former CEO and the main editor of it was probably paid. Adamant1 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like the same issue as AIA Group, self-promotion for the same CEO Dorama285 17:12, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIA Group, LLC[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet GNG and fails NCORP. What is out there is just stock price changes or press releases. Plus, it was created and mainly edited by a single user that only edits things related to the company or its CEO. So it's clearly meant for promotional purposes. Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion and looks like it doubles as promotion for its CEO. Dorama285 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Isaiah[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. It is essentially a lot of original research, with no sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable musician, long detail article but found no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 27 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get a Life (Soul II Soul song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG - all references just chart listings, can't find any significant coverage. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: apart from this song being a big hit in numerous countries, Soul II Soul were arguably the biggest R&B/dance group in the world at this point, having had major success worldwide (including in the US) with their previous single "Back to Life" and its parent album Club Classics Vol. I – this was the lead single from the highly anticipated follow-up album and received a lot of coverage in the music press at the time. Just because it's not on the internet, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist... you just have to go looking in back issues of music magazines to find it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:01, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queppelin[edit]

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

Undersourced company profile created by COI editor. Ref#1 is a simple listing, #2 is an interview-based advertorial, #3 is a passing mention and #4 is a promotional YouTube video. None of these sources establish notability, a Google search revealed no other promising in-depth sources (news coverage consists of press releases, interviews and other PR activities) - no evidence that this company meets our notabilty guidelines. Note: I have removed some other links that were equally unsuitable for encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable and clearly was intended for the purpose of promotion. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources on the pager are pretty terrible, but searching more widely only shows existence, not notability. Not notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like more sections than available sources. Dorama285 (talk) 20:05, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lycanthrope (film)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NFILM and lacks significant mentions in reliable sources. Completely unsourced and WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing in Variety under either title. No significant coverage found in Google Books. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:22, 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 no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 00:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Duval[edit]

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

It has been tagged as autobiography and primary sources, since October 2019. On the Talk Kstone999 said "It looks like a WP:BLP1E case of WP:LOWPROFILE and appears as a WP:RESUME that simply outlines his professional history without any significant coverage" It was edited a lot by Caliwing, aka Indidea, confirmed promotional sockpuppets. (Sockpuppet Investigations) Most sources are either self-published, primary (indidea.org, and e.foundation), about a few projects he was involved with, interviews of other people, short mentions (e.g. of his firing from Mandriva), or not reliable (i.e. TGDaily). I note that sock and meat puppetry was a concern at [9] where both Caliwing and Indidea participated, and may be expected here. Yae4 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to actually start enforcing our no autobiographies rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with John, and I'd add that the noteworthy information about Duval (re. his contributions to the software industry) is already included in the Mandriva Linux article. Perhaps a redirect might be appropriate, but I'm leaning towards delete altogether. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient to be considered significant per the GNG. Note articles such as this one in Le Monde, a French newspaper of record which is about him exclusively. He is particularly notable within France and the French press ~~[10], [11], etc~~. Yes, most English language media talk about him in reference to his software contributions, but this isn't an Anglocentric encyclopedia. The French coverage plus all the other coverage combined, considering his significant impact in the industry, should be enough for a decent notability claim. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PK650: You've confused or combined two Gael Duvals: Two sources for the wrong one, associated with JeChange and Touch Conference, and one source for the one associated with Mandrake and eelo aka e. The LeMonde source is really mostly another rehash of Mandrake and /e OS, and that author's list of articles has all appearances of being a Tech blog, similar to what we don't give much credit from Forbes or the Guardian. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about there being two people! Funny. You couldn't possibly argue Le Monde is not a reliable source, however. So the argument still stands. I didn't delve into the author's details, but the editorial integrity of the publication cannot be questioned in the manner you're implying. Not considering this as valid sigcov would be a double standard. PK650 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in the following reliable sources: — Newslinger talk 09:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gaël Duval, l’adepte de Linux qui veut libérer les smartphones" from Le Monde
- "20 ans après Mandrake Linux, Gaël Duval présente son nouveau projet : Eelo, le smartphone libre" from Numerama

This article was created in 2004, while the earliest of the named accounts was created in 2013. — Newslinger talk 09:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger:This 2004 article start was written by someone who knew all about Duval and his homepages, and used ZERO sources. LeMonde and Numerama sources are really all about /e and Mandrake, not about Duval. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from Le Monde and Numerama also cover Duval's personal life, personal experiences, and personal motivations for developing these projects. The subject of these articles is Duval, and the coverage spans both of his projects (Mandriva Linux and /e/) as well as personal information about Duval that would be out the product articles' respective scopes. Products are not "events", and in any case, Duval developed two notable products, not one. Duval is also not a low-profile individual, as he has given interviews to notable publications including The Register (RSP entry) and BGR (Boy Genius Report), in addition to all of the news coverage cited in the Mandriva Linux and /e/ (operating system) articles that include Duval's name. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those sources present more info' about the projects than about Duval. It's embarrassing for Wikipedia that the article has been a resume for nearly 16 years. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These articles present sufficient information about Duval himself to merit an article for him. For example, Le Monde details Duval's early life and Numerama covers why Duval transitioned from working on Mandriva Linux to /e/. Duval has two notable projects, and we don't exclude people from having biographies because their creations are notable. AfD discussions focus on the existence of reliable sources, rather than the present or past content in the article. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Numerama. In a different context, I believe you'd agree the site is a click bait, team-blog site, masquerading as a news site (i.e. non-reliable). [12] (though it does list an editor in chief). There was non-consensus on reliability in previous discussion.[13] Did you see the Vroom section at Numerama (similar to cars.com)?

Re: "two notable projects". The French wikipedia article on Mandriva[14] gives equal credit to Frédéric Bastok et Jacques Le Marois as well, for Mandrake business. This is confirmed by the Le Monde article. So, it does support some change to the english Mandriva articles (which should probably be merged), but that's only one and a fraction projects. In fairness, there's also Ulteo and Ulteo Open Virtual Desktop - two more Duval-involved articles for one more project advertised on Wikipedia, but they also have marginal sourcing, should be merged, and at least one was also self-edited.

Re Mandriva Linux sources. Those sources are almost entirely after 2006 after Duval was fired.

As said earlier, I believe the Le Monde article being discussed here is of blog quality, with less editorial oversight than other articles. The following, to me, is an indicator. The Le Monde article [15] author's (Bastien Lion) contributions are listed under the following

https://www.lemonde.fr/signataires/bastien-lion/

Note the URL difference in the following list of articles:

https://www.lemonde.fr/signataires/pixels/

Taking an example from that list, regarding Zuckerberg [16], Note that it is authored, "Par Pixels". This indicates to me it is considered more a publication of Le Monde. Other "Pixels" articles are attributed to individual authors, and it looks like this is consistent with less editorial oversight. Last, while it gives some personal detail, it's mostly about the projects, not the person, IMO. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable not just as the initiator of a major Linux distro. The sources seem good enough to pass GNG. --Slashme (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete, in case the AfD wasn't a clear vote). It's difficult to find non-primary sources for any details about Duval himself. Only projects are detailed in secondary sources, and he's the spokesman for the project(s). -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's non-standard for article nominators to submit a separate bolded delete !vote, since the nomination is assumed to be in favor of deletion unless you specify otherwise. — Newslinger talk 01:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The initial comment was mostly repeating what Kstone999 said before. I saw it as looking for more opinions, and I hadn't yet fully made up my mind, until I saw how weak the "Keep" arguments are, so I wanted to make my position clear. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate delete !votes run the risk of being misinterpreted as duplicate !votes. As mentioned in WP:AFDFORMAT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." — Newslinger talk 01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if this were high enough profile to get many votes it would "run a risk." Anyway, sorry for missing the rule; it's been unbolded and notated. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Possibly a notable topic, but not very useful in its current form. The title may be more suited to a disambiguation page. – bradv🍁 05:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idol (pop culture)[edit]

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

Page copies Japanese idol and Korean idol; these articles already exist in respect to their own countries, so this seems like a duplicate article. lullabying (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the recent wave of idol groups in the Asian pop music industry is notable enough for an overview article, and the topic is sufficiently distinct from the American teen idol. The author has also started a few new articles, Chinese idol and Thai idol. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pop culture idol could be anything from religious idols/charms to pop icons, not to mention the Idol (franchise). This might have to be renamed to Idol (Asian pop music) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: I understand your argument, but just having an "Idol" dab page is too broad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have had to remove almost all the content, as it was copied from the source documents, in violation of our copyright policy. Most of the content that remains was copied from Japanese idol— Diannaa (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicate and unnecessary variation of Pop icon. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is not good, but the phenomenon of manufactured Asian pop music idol groups is not quite the same subject. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copied from the source documents, in violation of our copyright policy. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Create dab page. We have Japanese idol, Korean idol, Chinese idol, Thai idol, Teen idol, and Matinée idol under this scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe Idol (entertainer) would be a more suitable name? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think creating a DAB page would be more preferable since the history of "idols" is different in each country. However, the current article as is has a lot of copied content. lullabying (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current article as is would be deleted, and replaced by the DAB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would also move the (country idol) entries off the Idol (disambiguation) page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters[edit]

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

Characters in a WP:MILL anime series that is "based on dinosaurs and explosions". Almost entirely unsourced, except for a bit of trivia which could also be added to the main article. Fails WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT. No indication that these characters as a group, or any of them (as opposed to their anime series) have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources, though. At any rate, the natural habitat for such fancruft are fan wikis. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger. ~~The series itself is only borderline notable and~~ Even if the series itself is notable, we really don't need a plot-heavy list of the characters. This isn't Wikia. --Slashme (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: Borderline notable? You kidding me? Super Sentai lasted for decades and their annual sales are billions of yen. ミラ P 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft space. Although it’s doubtless a valid content fork, I still incubated it there to address possible issues with the article’s quality, but I guess nom moved it there just so it could die there. Yes, fancruft and all that stuff, but deletion is not cleanup. That said, I see no reason to move it to main space just so it could be deleted. Ping Sgeureka who was the first one to come up with the idea and also Lullabying who also suggested the idea. ミラ P 15:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some more background: I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked Lifeforms Evolien, where opinions were all over the place, but I thought that the most consensual outcome was to implement Miraclepine's proposed merger and allow another AfD of the combined list. I acknowledge that it wasn't really clear whether people thought that the merged list should stay in draftspace first, though, and there might have well been reasons for keeping it there. I'm not opposed to moving it back to draft space if people think the content has some potential for inclusion - I'm just not seeing it, for the reasons mentioned above. Sandstein 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラ P 15:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft space per Miraclepine. I'm sure it was a good faith move on Sandstein's part, but moving it back seems the most appropriate course of action to me. — Hunter Kahn 15:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft space, with the understanding that all of the content will need to be removed and rewritten completely. This is exactly the sort of excessively long unsourced meandering cruft that gets uncontroversially deleted at AfD. Reyk _YO! 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft space and remember to preserve the full edit history of the articles that were merged. If someone believes they can fix the article, then they should be given time to try. Dream Focus 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources says it all: our latest Signpost report states that, There have been many articles on notable topics deleted here simply because we didn't have access to the sources in Japan. The deletion process here is extremely biased against non-English sources and topics. If it hasn't been discussed in an English-language source, there are a fair number of editors who have to be reminded that sources are not required to be in English, and that it is much more difficult to get sources from a country where there has been less effort at getting older sources online. It's live-action, not anime, and explosions are routine in the franchise. ミラ P 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to draft space and remember to preserve the full edit history of the articles that were merged. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 27 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of Jimmy Century[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Nothing turned up in an internet search and a Rock's Backpages search. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of Jimmy Century is listed in AllMusic Guide and actually there are numerous listings for them in a Google internet search.

_signed,Twentyfourhustle —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 6 February 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Virtually everyone is listed on AllMusic, so that doesn't mean much (although a review on there would count as a single source towards GNG). I'm not sure I see what you're pointing out in the Google search, the top results are not secondary coverage of the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not fall within WP:DP and meets WP:GNG. Per WP:V, the content of this article, to include the band's existence, can be easily verified by a multiplicity of reliable sources utilizing internet search engines. Furthermore, this article meets WP:GNG per WP:MUS.

Spooky52 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As written, I don't think a single one of the currently cited sources contributes towards GNG. The only independent coverage is mere mentions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is recommended Keep this article. Before deleting allow an editor to update sources. There are plenty of reliable sources easily available. Spooky52 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Allmusic is a reliable source, however, I have heard that this is true only if the site of said band also includes a biography. This is not true in this case, since it lists only their discography and related stuff. When only the discography is listed on Allmusic, I think they are on the same level as databases like Rate Your Music, Sputnik Music, Spirit of Metal etc. Prove me wrong, this is just what I heard.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is recommended to Keep this article given that AllMusic.com cannot guarantee that any artist will have biographical data available and as such no metric exists. Given this uncertainty, it would be logically flawed to allow articles with bio data to remain while deleting others. Given that Allmusic.com is considered a primary source caution should be exercised and error should be on the side of caution instead of deleting this article. Ref https://www.allmusic.com/faq/topic/submitbio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spooky52 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage required for a WP page, after discounting the usual hits from Youtube, Facebook and so forth. Having an Allmusic page is no gauge of notability, it is not an automatic pass, even more so when there isn't the bio to accompaniment it. Mattg82 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:GNG. Even local garage bands tend to have more than only two mentions in independant sources (About.com review, and endorsement by fighter Liz Carmouche). – Thjarkur (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:SPAM. Hog Farm (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage to warrant its own page. Dorama285 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Iyamu[edit]

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

Iyamu doesn't appear to be notable under his stage name or real name. The sources are largely puff pieces and otherwise unreliable (especially those that I removed, which are part of a black hat SEO spam group and entirely fake.)

None of the remaining sources are in depth coverage, they're interviews or pieces unattributed to any actual editor from those papers. A search reveals more of the aforementioned "fake" news sites (like this one, who's editorial staff are stock images and famous people's photos) or press releases and interviews and his 4 self published books do nothing to establish notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both "Thompson Iyamu" and "P Tee Money" his stage name generate lots of news-related references when searched in googlenews. See This and This. The current citations on the page also meet the wiki notability standards. Hence, the topic is in line with WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Also meets WP:BIO.Quarterto500 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those sources are fake news outlets from blackhat SEO firms. Praxidicae (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quarterto500: SIGCOV and GNG only applies to wp:Reliable sources, not any old crap that google search returns. This is the specific with which we are dealing that there is paid editing and puff pieces that are not reasonable to use in an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources cited are from widely known Nigerian newspapers. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking of sources that proves the notability of the subject, a quick web search of the name "Thompson iyamu" shows results from top news organisations like here, here and here. Meets the requirements for a WP:BIO page. ItsBiyi (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite that he doesn't seem to be in a high degree of notability, but by doing a related research on the internet concerning his name (e.g. here), it can be concluded that he might be considered --at least-- at a minimum acceptable degree of notability, to be kept instead of being deleted. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "Keep" votes seem suspiciously ... similar, don't they? RobinCarmody (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Regardless, not one of the 'keep' voters has provided any fresh reliable sources, from what I can see. Domeditrix (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Per nom. Kevdaren (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The existence of sources covering someone or something is not the same as coverage from reliable sources, which this subject lacks. Domeditrix (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just another no-name DJ or rapper, and I see encyclopedic value here for Wikiproject Benin, especially since he is connected to the Benin Royal Family, Akenzua II, Princess Elizabeth Olowu. Multiple credits in many films with Wikipedia articles and collaborations such as Matthew S. Sources can eventually be improved but he is notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sir, the Benin royal family is in Nigeria, not the country of Benin. Mr. Iyamu is clearly notable as a member of a historic royal family. His presence is very well-known in Nigeria, and no Nigerian in his right mind would ever want to delete an article of a royal family member who with a notable career abroad, unless he has some hidden agenda against him. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep unsourced crap in the hopes that it can be fixed later. Read WP:BLP and WP:V. Praxidicae (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First of all, it is highly inappropriate to refer to a person of Benin royal descent as cr*p. That can get you into very serious trouble for lèse-majesté in some parts of the world. The Edo people had traditionally considered the Oba of Benin to be divine and held his family in very high esteem. Today, Edo people of royal extraction contribute to Nigerian and global societies in many ways as statesmen, educators, role models for our communities and defenders of our cultures.

This is deeply offensive to us Nigerians and reminds us of the time when Donald Trump used a very vulgar word to refer to Africa. Furthermore, your careless remarks bring to mind the Punitive Benin Expedition of 1897, when the British desecrated our royal families and plundered our Benin Bronzes. They tried to put an end to our centuries-old Kingdom of Benin, but we persisted and today have good relations with the British. But we are still hurting from the way oyibos (foreigners) have treated us. Please mind your words and bear our troubled history in mind.

Finally, I am not angry at you. I extend a warm handshake to you and all of the Wikipedians as a friend and brother. Should you ever want to get to know more about us, I will cordially invite you to the modern-day Kingdom of Benin, one of the richest, most fascinating and most enduring cultures in all of Africa. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep: I randomly came across this while curating articles on Edo history and just had to comment. I do not know what Praxidicae is talking about when he says fake sources and unsourced. WP:BLP and WP:V are very clearly satisfied here, with Thompson Iyamu being featured in multiple major Nigerian newspapers. Ask any Nigerian about these newspapers and he or she can confirm that these are major legitimate newspapers which everyone in Nigeria knows about. In Nigeria, they are the equivalents of The New York Post and The Telegraph. One of them is in fact almost 100 years old. These Nigerian newspapers are all covered on Wikipedia.

Daily Times of Nigeria, founded in 1925
The Punch, founded in 1971
Guardian, founded in 1983
Vanguard, founded in 1983
Independent

These are reliable sources that have dedicated entire articles for featuring Thompson Iyamu.

Here is the template of major Nigerian newspapers in case you are still not convinced:

So let me clarify a few more things. I was browsing and editing through many articles of Edo history and prominent Edo people when I suddenly came upon this article by chance. I don't know who wrote this and how this all started, but as a Nigerian of Edo heritage who actually knows about Edo (Benin) society, I just have to point out that any Nigerian will be able to tell you that this article should clearly not be deleted. Besides being known from his music career in the UK, Thompson Iyamu is from the prominent Akenzua family of Southern Nigeria, which is a historicaly important family that Nigerians from that area all know about.

So even though I don't personally know this family, any Nigerian from that part of Nigeria who is well grounded in Edo history is going to know about Akenzua II and his family. To my dismay, none of the voters here know anything about Nigerian families, Nigerian culture, or Nigerian media sources. Some of the opinions and claims here are blatantly incorrect.

We all know too well that the blatant systematic bias on Wikipedia (WP:WORLDVIEW) allows for topics in developed countries to thrive on Wikipedia, while African topics are not only underrepresented, but also often unfairly treated and purged due to all sorts of arbitrarily interpreted policies that often do not fit well into the African context. While Royal British and Scandinavian family members with notable careers in the arts have a very easy time, the fact that African royal family members with notable careers in the arts are harassed like this points to a deep systematic bias that the Wikipedia community seriously needs to address.

Have you ever wondered why the current members of the British royal family are not being similarly harassed on Wikipedia? Because of WP:BIAS. The Wikipedia community at large is predominantly non-African and has very little knowledge of how to properly select and curate encyclopedia articles that would be useful to Africans. Every month, notable Africans who have made invaluable contributions to society are deleted, while fake pastors, fraudulent businessmen and corrupt politicians of no obvious notability are allowed to thrive.

And royal family member or not, this is a musician and actor who clearly belongs in an online reference work, like Thompson's relative Peju Layiwola, also of the well-known Akenzua family. Touring with Weird MC, appearing in many notable films, and other films, he is also notable abroad. Back home, any Nigerian you meet in Benin City will tell you that this person is clearly not a nobody who should not be on an encyclopedia.

If there are any inadequecies, I will volunteer my time to improve the article's content and citations.

I am only giving my honest opinion here. I hope you will all think twice before saying that this article deserves to be deleted.

So keep this my brothers. Let's contribute to the encyclopedia, build our community and help the world with free, useful knowledge. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: clearly passes the GNG. The article already has multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. --Slashme (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wondering now whether I should have been so harsh above. Anglosphere bias concerns me as well. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm one of those editors who agree with deleting most DJ articles, but this one appears to meet WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Alamain[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 5 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} 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Lawrence Alamain was well known as a controversial villain on Days of Our Lives; the character raped a woman, and then (as happens sometimes in soap operas) became more popular following the assault. There are many contemporary newspaper stories about the character, including:

"'Days' Star Appalled at Reaction to Rapist Character" by Lydia Hirsch, Orlando Sun-Sentinel (Nov 28, 1991)
"Michael Sabatino: He's So Bad He's Good" by John M. Goudas, Tulsa World (May 5, 1991)
"Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know: Michael Sabatino enjoys playing villains like Lawrence Alamain" by Nancy M. Reichardt for United Feature Syndicate (Feb 10, 1991)
"Michael Sabatino Enjoying Bad-Boy Role on 'Days'" by Nancy M. Reihardt for Newspaper Enterprise Associate (NEA) (Jan 9, 1991)
"'Days of Our Lives' villain uses new tactic on prime-time special" by Donna Gable for Gannett News Service (Jan 10, 1992)
The character has also been analyzed in an academic work, Trash Culture: Popular Culture and the Great Tradition by Richard Keller Simon (University of California Press, 1999). "This is The White Devil in modern dress. Alamain is a brilliant combination of the murderous and powerful duke and the mocking and cynical malcontent, and Kimberly is a new version of the prostitute Vittoria who plays a dangerous game with him. Like the duke, Alamain kills almost casually and is vulnerable to the charms of a prostitute."
There's also coverage in the academic work Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera and US Television History by Elana Levine (Duke University Press, 2020): "Days of Our Lives creative heads were told by NBC that stories of violence against women resulted in increased ratings, logic that contributed to the tale of ingenue Jennifer Horton's rape by Lawrence Alamain."

I think that's enough to show notability. I'll add these to the article in a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s), no WP:NOTPLOT-failing stand-alone article necessary per WP:NOPAGE. No prejudice against recretion if someone actually wants to write a proper article on him, but it's already been 12 years where that hasn't been the case, so I am not confident this will happen. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IMPATIENT says that an article shouldn't be deleted just because it hasn't been improved over a specific period of time: "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future." To establish notability, it's enough that reliable sources exist (WP:NEXIST) that could be used to improve the article. The sources listed above demonstrate notability; they're now listed in a Further reading section to help editors who want to improve it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles also shouldn't be created before such a time where they can stand on their own. No rush works both ways. That argument only works for a topic that has no parent article structure because it would thus be completely removed from this site, which would be a negative to the encyclopedia. It does not work for fictional items that can be easily covered in their parent topic until such a time they can be split, or it can allow for the organization of information in such a way that it doesn't need to be split. TTN (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Sgeureka. The topic has not received the proper attention it needs to be stand alone, and something that has a parent article should indeed be applicable for removal after a certain amount of time. Building block sources can be placed on the talk page of the page to which it is redirected. TTN (talk) 12:25, 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 no consensus. Editors don't agree as to whether the sources identified meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLVD Place[edit]

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

This article about a mixed-use development fails WP:NGEO. Many of the references read like press releases and therefore, in my opinion, they should not be considered independent of the subject. Also, many of the sources are from before the development was fully constructed, which calls into question its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance according to WP:NBUILD. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added ~~three~~ two references, all of which were written after the development was completed. ~~The third particularly shows the social significance of the development to the surrounding area.~~ Disregard final statement; unreliable reference. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX LibStar (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:ROTM development. According to the article, its claim to fame is that it's the biggest development in Uptown Huston (note, that's a business district, not half of the city). Most of the sources are regurgitated press releases, and almost half of them are now dead links. There's no real claim of notability. --Slashme (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Gnews just reveals passing mentions or something that happened at an individual shop of the development. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes notability per multiple sources that all date from well after the center's completion. The coverage easily extends beyond the everyday and shows that the center is notable. WP:ROTM is not policy, and "happened at an individual shop of the development" is kind of how malls are supposed to work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oaklee Pendergast[edit]

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

Non-notable child actor. But no reliable sources were found. Ni3Xposite (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ni3Xposite (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR. Pendergast has lead roles in Camping (British TV series) and Home (British TV series), and significant roles in The Impossible (2012 film) and The Woman in Black: Angel of Death. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page itself needs work, but I definitely think the subject meets WP:NACTOR, as noted by Toughpigs. In terms of WP:GNG, he is mentioned in a lot of reputable news articles, including Deadline and Variety, but I have only found one article dedicated entirely to him thus far and I'm not familiar with the news outlet, HITC (although its reliability does seem questionable at first blush). However, I will work on the page and add some sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now updated the page and added 8 sources. Apart from the HITC one, the only other source where there is no consensus regarding reliability is Radio Times. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with two leading television roles and extra reliable sources references have been added to the article. The Radio Times is a reliable source, its no longer owned by the BBC and these series were shown on other channels anyway, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 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) 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PayActiv[edit]

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

Promotional and borderline non-notable The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a reason for deletion

With respect to notability , most of the references are either articles about the general problem, or essentially press releases, or mere notices. . The NYT article mention this firm among others, as does CNN & the WSJ--they do not amount to significant coverage. The Forbes article is by a "contributor"--a press release they taken o responsibility for. The awards are minor, and not of general significance. As for promotionalism : most of the article is advocacy about the need for an organization such as this one, all throughout the article, & particularly in section 2. The article gives promotional features of the company's plan, addressed only to prospective users, ( " all employees are eligible from day one") It's written in a manner appropriate to a web page, ("financial wellness" ; "responsible and sustainable man". The company name is used over 20 times in the short article. .

Normally on seeing such an article I'd move it into draft space. But it already was in draft space, and the author moved it into main space themself, thus defeating the the purpose of having the article reviewed. I should note that the ed. is not usually a promotional editor, but works competently on reasonable subjects in the field of entertainment; I cannot account for this exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total advert and not notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciate the review and we're open to discussing options to help reduce or remove the promotional language. If agreeable, we will make suggested edits in the TALK page for review? Thank you LucyArn (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator in addition to an undeclared paid editor creating the article in the first place.VViking_TalkEdits 14:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: LucyArn has now provided the proper disclosure of paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion "solution is offered as a financial wellness service ", "provides a holistic financial wellness solution to its users", "all from their mobile phone", "advocated for earned wage access", "to better deliver services to users", "a voluntary financial wellness benefit"?! This is nuts.
As for the sources, The New York times dedicates three sentences to PayActiv, the LA Times about 15% of their article. Its not much better for the other ones. None of this is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article consists largely of marketing buzzspeak, probably introduced by the paid editor. If the buzzspeak is deleted, not much is left, probably not enough to establish corporate notability. My advice to the paid editor is my usual advice to paid editors, which is that if all of the promotional content that they are paid to put in an article is really removed, there will be little remaining value to the article, so that it is a better expense of corporate money to improve their own web site, which is not edited by neutral volunteers. It isn't the job of neutral volunteers to try to help paid editors write something neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find much to indicate the company is notable. Dorama285 (talk) 20:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms[edit]

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

Procedural nomination to stop editors from edit warring over whether it should be in draft space. The sources in the article are nowhere near WP:GNG. It doesn't look like there's any coverage in English, and I was able to find some trivial coverage in Japanese. I wasn't able to search in Lithuanian, which is another language that may have coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until ready for main space. --Slashme (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable opera. Chiune Sugihara is notable and this play is not. In addition, there is no significant coverage in Lithuanian language aside from some mentions about the opera's playing date and links to ticket websites to see the play. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've cleaned it up and found a couple of sources, but not nearly enough to establish notability. As Sabbatino, says, they are basically announcements of performances—no reviews or even background stories. At most, a brief mention could be made in the legacy section of Chiune Sugihara (the opera's protagonist). I'm not sure, its worth draftiying unless there is a significant chance of finding further sources which could establish notability. I sincerely doubt it. Incidentally, there have been two other earlier operas based on Chiune Sugihara, an equally non-notable one in English called Incident in Lithuania (2006) [17] and a somewhat more notable one composed by Toshi Ichiyanagi (2006) [18]. There was also the musical Sempo, composed by Miyuki Nakajima (2008) [19]. Leaving the article as a redirect to Chiune Sugihara#Legacy is also a non-starter, because it is very unclear what the actual English title is. Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Software Technology Parks of India. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omkar Rai[edit]

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

All available coverage covers Rai in the context of, and generally as a spokesman for, Software Technology Parks of India. I don't think that GNG has been met. Thus, I think that redirect to Software Technology Parks of India is appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWatch Subject is an individual and redirect is an organisation. Both serve different purpose as [STPI] is a policy making body responsible on dealing India's IT export. However subject is key IT policy maker and was earlier chief of SEZ India and commissioner SEZ . Redirect will not suit if he moves to different org. cheers. RufinaSmith (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RufinaSmith (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Could be a redirect to Software Technology Parks of India, and any worthwhile content added to that article. Edwardx (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – as nom, and as was the case previously. As the subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG it is the most effective solution. We should not speculate on what *might* happen in the future (WP:CRYSTAL). Eagleash (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might he be notable under WP:ACADEMIC#5 and #6? --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software Technology Parks of India. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Forrest, Arizona. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Spur, Arizona[edit]

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

There used to an industrial spur from Forrest, Arizona to this place, but in spite of an array of black squares on old enough topos which look like a town, aerials show that this was always and only some sort of industrial concern (a lime plant, various references tell me), and not a settlement. There is some reference to the place in historic discussion of the rail line (the plant was the last customer on the line) but I'm not seeing that as giving notability. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly not a populated place, not evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 08:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forrest, Arizona where I added a mention. It is not clear where the "200 families" mentioned there lived, whether in Forrest itself or along the spur, so it could have been considered a discrete populated place. An article on the lime plant can always be split from there in the future. Note that this shows Forrest and Paul Spur were distinct unincorporated communities.----Pontificalibus 15:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with this. When checking this out I found reference to a cemetery, but everything seems to show this area as an annex to Forrest. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Mahila Congress[edit]

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

There is only one source in the article. The source is not enough for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Even, via google search it does not seem to me that it will pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a quick Google search shows ample RS and proves its notability. See no reason why it fails GNG. New sources can always be found and we shouldn't judge the article only based on the sources it includes and improvements can always be made. Most important is the notability of the subject. Therefore keep but the article needs rewriting. The sources: [20][21][22][23][24]. Just a minor search and I found loads of sources.

--WikiAviator (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first one is its activities. In the other sources it gets almost mere mention.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed all these sources by WikiAviator and none of them are passing ORGCRIT. They are passing mention or ROUTINE news of a statement of the office bearers or party event. (see analysis below.)--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:*Keep: At a rough glance nom. has swamped WP:AfD with a shedload of AFD's that should have been at best bundled; or perhaps a test case for one regional branch that could have been spread to the others. This is the central organisation which should have been kept in any event. This may even qualify for a speedy keep. Its easier for me being more familiar with UK politics to see how organisations related to political associations are treated ... in general these are often retained but I wouldn't expect the local branches to be retained, situation for semi-automonous regions might be different. In passing I note the BJP's BJP Mahila Morcha has slipped the net and been deleted with minimal participation. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Recusing due to risk of sanctions if I continue. I am shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My search for sources clearly shown notability for the All India Mahila Congress, but the local branches could redirect to the main article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article for the national congress, adding a paragraph about the state committees, and then redirect all the state committees (also nominated at AfD, and such poor little stubs that they don't even indicate why they have been listed as "women-related", to those of us unfamiliar with Indian politics) to this article. PamD 09:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My best understanding, with assist of Google Translate, is Mahila is Hindi for female, but I am open to correction. Pragmatically I had assumed this from context.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC) (I'd also almost be so bold as actually suggest considering this as "All India Women's Congress"). Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Thought: Also possible Mahila is a valid word in Indian English dialect, isn't on Wikitionary currently though as far as I can tell.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor point I've now created wikt:mahila, though I have some nervousness if I have done it right and it will stick; but given apparent usage in Indian English and these titles seems reasonable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mahila is the Hindi equivalent of woman. Can we now focus on this AfD and see some source passing WP:ORGCRIT ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Pragmatically I personally evaluate this AfD is currently at the point where any closer evaluating a consensus to delete would be taken to the WP:DRV WP:TROUT farm, although things may change. With that triage evaluation I thus may choose to do other things such as brock watching. I will quite likely of course receive the last word. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? focus on the content please. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that instead of providing sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH Djm has left the AfD, saying so in edit summary. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above. Also agree with PamD, the state committees should just be merged with the main article (currently a stub) and a substantial article can be created with just all citations there are already in the state committees combined. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Tayi Arajakate and Cwmhiraeth, and all others, can you guys be so kind enough to share what sources are you using to vote a keep on this ? I have reviewed the sources by WikiAviator and none of them are passing WP:ORGCRIT. I have reviewed several of these articles since they were nominated en masse and it is clear to me that they are political spam created for WP:PROMO reasons of Indian National Congress party. IMHO almost all of them merit a deletion for lacking any worthwhile content (saying "almost all" since I am yet to review all of them) --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will do a deeper research on this later but right now I found [25] after a short search. I believe this is notable enough to have its own article, being the women's wing of a major Indian party. Putting a comment to bookmark this AfD for later. I remember vaguely that Sucheta Kripalani founded this sometime before the Quit India movement. That would make this a 75+ years old organisation and it is highly improbably there will be no description of this over so many years.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gave says it was founded in 1984. So clearly your link disagrees with your vague memories. The link above covers the date and reasons for formation of this WP:BRANCH from its charter (party sources that are primary and dependent). We would need significant independent coverage to keep. Indian National Congress is Notable, its numerous sub organisations may not be popular (read notable). Per WP:BRANCH, if an independent page is needed the individual SIGCOV must be shown. If sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH are lacking, then the page must be redirected to the parent organisation. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point was precisely the disagreement over founding date. The links says founded in 1984 but I remember reading about its pre-independence origins. More research is required for this. In any case, if you believe this should be redirected, please feel free to cast your !vote.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The date when this "wing" was created is 1984, there is no disagreement over it. Provide links that says otherwise if you have, your memories are not RS. I have already said that this should be redirected since nothing that I found or the others have presented merits a separate page. Even its parent org, does not find it worthy of its own website [26]. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 07:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray,DreamLinker Here are the two sources (links)1, 2. They say the Mahila Congress was founded by Sucheta Kripalani in 1940.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akhiljaxxn, thanks for the ping, The Mahila Congress Akhil is referring to is the historical one and not the one currently existing. I hope folks know that the Congress (I) is not the same as Congress of Nehru. For those who dont know can read it here on Indian_National_Congress#Indira_era_(1966–1984). The subject of this AfD is the All India Mahila Congress (I) , although the I is no longer used. And this particular one was started in 1984.⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 19:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the link. I haven't had enough time myself to properly research. In any case, the historical precursors can be mentioned in this article. The article on INC also lists the historical origins and this one should as well. I see this as a viable article in the sense that it includes not only the present organisation but also information about the historical ones and about women's involvement in the INC in general.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please relist this if possible.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DBigXray: Replying to your inquiry on presenting sources that verify the notability of the article, here are sources that can establish the notability of the subject:[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] None of these are promotional or trivial coverage. These are whole articles that clearly verify the notability of the subject of the article. I don't see why this article does not comply with notability guidelines. WikiAviator (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [7] (posted a second time) news event covering a minor protest event. No coverage of the org.

[3], [8] (posted a second time) covering the political statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.

[9] A one line mention of the event in [7]. No coverage of the org.

[2], [10] (posted a second time) a one line statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.

[4], [11] (posted a second time) a one line statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.

[5], [12] (posted a second time) news about a "planned" event covered in [7]. No coverage of the org.

[13] statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.

None of this sources are even covering the organisation and claiming that these sources are passing WP:ORGDEPTH shows a lack of understanding of our stringent policies to keep away political and commercial spam. Based on whatever was shared so far only reinforces my belief that this should be redirected to the parent org INC --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: It seems I have to publicize this.

Dear readers, let me tell you what happened. This is his sudden feedback on my talk page:

Hi there. (1) Please confirm that you have read and understood Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH. (2) regarding the AfD source. Please do not repeat the links that you have already presented in your previous comments, doing so shows you in bad light, as it appears as though you are trying to pass 1 source as 2. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Foremost, I clearly understand WP:ORGDEPTH and I think that the sources pass the criteria. Moreover, I am too busy (in real life) to check which sources have been mentioned before. I am in no means trying to pass one source as two, I simply didn't check. If this has confused you, then i sincerely apologize. Also, please do not jump the gun right away and assume I am in bad light. This makes people feel offended and please learn how to assume good faith (WP:AGF). Thanks for your understanding:) WikiAviator (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, fine. I will respond at afd. I gave u the chance to correct. DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't think my sources are unreliable or trivial coverage and it is pretty clear that most of them can verify the notability of the subject. And here's when things go funny, he said that I "am in bad light" for repeating the sources. But sorry it's your own problem. I am not trying to pass one source as two. I repeated them because I didn't care to check before posting and it seems that you have ignored the sources above, so I reposted them. Can't see the sources? No worries, I am happy to repeat for blind bats (I didn't say it's you, judge it yourself). Let's look at the sources one by one:

[1],[7] Look at the headline, what does it say: All India Mahila Congress stages 'Dharna' outside (...). It is talking about the political activities of the· organisation. Isn't it about the org itself? Of course activities count. If you need a detailed history about an org in order to list it on Wikipedia, then I'm sure even companies listed on S&P 500 will be deleted, and Wikipedia will shrink by 20%. Where on earth does ORGDEPTH mention that activities can't be counted as sources? What's your logic? Stop slurring things into a big lump and repeat the same invalid argument over and over again instead of going into the core of the problem.

[3],[8] In the article: "The Congress is on the verge of drawing blank again in the Assembly polls as all its candidates were way far behind their AAP and BJP opponents on all the 70 seats. In the 2015 Assembly elections too, Congress failed to win any seat." Are you sure this is not coverage of the org?

[9] In the article:"The All India Mahila Congress (AIMC) leaders also staged a protest against LPG price hike outside the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry office in Delhi on Thursday. The INC spokesperson Sushmita Dev and the Congress leader Alka Lamba led a rally with other members against the rise in prices of non-subsidised 14 kg Indane gas in metros which came into effect on Wednesday." Are you sure this is "one-line" and trivial? Can you read properly?

[2],[10] Are you only reading the headlines? Did you read the whole thing or are you just trying to make my sources sound bad? The argument or the leader, who is on behalf of the party's campaign, sparked nation-wide controversy, WP:ORGDEPTH:coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below), and WP:ORGDEPTH#Audience: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. As stated, this is not local coverage if we look at these guidelines.

[4],[11] For this one, sorry, this time I was in a rush. You're correct.

[5],[12] Thanks for helping me write my reply. Yes, it is exactly "news about a "planned" event covered in [7]". Planned events count as well. No one said this was forbidden.

[13] No one said that replies don't count. And this is not one-line coverage.

You see what's happening now, don't you? He's trying to defame my AfD reputation and trying to ban every source I list on every AfD discussion. Who are you "to give me a chance to correct"? I don't think I'm wrong. It is you who cannot analyse sources properly and then saying people are repeating?! This is absolutely bonkers. Please stop that. Thanks a lot. WikiAviator (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC), a native speaker of sarcasm. (I am friendly to most users, but if you're not, then sorry I'm not)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to rant like this against an editor at AfD. This only shows you in bad light. Other contributors can and will click the refs to verify the problems I have pointed. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 06:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not ranting you. I'm just pointing out your problems one by one in a manner that you don't like.WikiAviator (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, not a rant, it was a 1000 word diatribe. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:GNG.
Keep AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability by miles. If there is lack of ample references then try other tools available first rather go for afd. Shyamsunder (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject got covered by some leading news agencies of India. Clearly passes WP:ORG. GargAvinash (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Notability is evident. This Afd should close now. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. Redirect seems the obvious consensus, but whether to redirect to the company or the individual is a bit more problematic. I judge consensus to be to the company, but this could be further discussed and the redirect modified if necessary. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phage Press[edit]

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

Article on a company is sourced to Wikipedia itself, the company's own website, a defunct page called "guardiansorder.com", and a marignally RS book. A BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) finds no further RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish notability for this subject.TH1980 (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game

Per WP:BEFORE C.4, the nominator is to consider merging and redirection if an appropriate target exists. Per the cornerstone editing policy WP:PRESERVE, it is preferable to preserve than to delete sourced content. While it might be possible to bring this article to GNG standards using additional sources, the lasting encyclopedic interest is more likely to be in the major cultural product of the company, the highly influential Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game, than in the defunct company itself. Therefore the Nom should, per policy, have proposed this merger but neglected to do so. This will be the most appropriate close. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'd agree with redirecting, but the sources for Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game aren't impressive: dicelessbydesign.com, drivethrurpg.com, kickstarter.com, rpg.drivethrustuff.com, sjgames.com, therpgsite.com. Vexations (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe it would be possible to merge into the Erick Wujcik article if the Diceless Roleplaying Game article doesn't work for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
Good point, Vexations. I'll nominate Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game for deletion after this closes if no one else has done so by then. Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vexations, while I would be happy to add sources to the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game article, it already has reviews in Pyramid (a Reliable Source magazine independent of Phage Press)^[1]^[2] and in the independently published book Hobby Games: the 100 Best.^[3] Therefore, there is no risk of the reliably sourced Phage Press information being lost in a Merge to Amber Diceless. Newimpartial (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, I think it would be best if you want to make sure that Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game is a good target for a Phage Press redirect, that you add all the reliable sources you can find. I'm not sure that t we have any reliably sourced Phage Press information: There are four sources: Appelcline, which I don't have acccess to (the nearest library with a copy is 400 miles away), but I notice it has been used in more than 20 other articles [0&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A"first%3D+Shannon|last%3D+Appelcline"&advancedSearch-current={}]. The others though, I'm not convinced: Wujcik, is published by the subject, "Guardians Of Order's New Year's Message" is a dead link and then Phage's own website. Vexations (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appelcline is also available online at various storefronts, but in any event, the RSN discussion showing its reliability is here. Pyramid (magazine) was a print magazine in the period of numbered issues 2 and 6 when these reviews appeared; it was published by Steve Jackson Games with a professional editorial staff (led by Derek Pearcey and Scott Marsh for the issues in question) and was entirely independent of Phage Press and Amber. Hobby Games: The 100 Best is also a clearly independent and reliable source, published by Green Ronin and authored by Nicole Lindroos, neither of whom were connected in any way to Amber. As documented in the article, Amber Diceless was also reviewed in Dragon, Challenge, White Wolf and Shadis, all of which are RS independent of Phage Press and Amber. NBOOK and the GNG are therefore clearly met (eight independent RS) for the proposed target article, Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game, without adding further sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I was talking about sources used in Phage Press, you seem to be talking about Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. If you have sources, please add them to the relevant article. I'm willing to assume, in good faith, that Applecline is a reliable source. That's one reliable source for this article. Vexations (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But for a Merge !vote per PRESERVE, which I am making and which this thread is discussing, the number of RS for the article being merged is irrelevant to the decision to Merge, per policy. Even if the only sourced content on Phage Press consisted of SPS, which it does not, a Merge would still be the most appropriate close per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE, so long as a Notable and appropriate target is found for the Merge, The Notability of an Article's subject is only relevant at AfD to its standing as a separate article (keep vs. Delete), not to its being merged and discussed in another article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, The (potential) sources for Phage Press matters, because we need to decide if there's any content that can be preserved by merging. Vexations (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, content must be sourced to be Merged, but the sources need not meet Notability standards, only the core Verifiability policy. For example , WP:ABOUTSELF (part of WP:V) specifies that sources published by an article's subject are considered reliable for information concerning the article's subject, subject to certain conditions (with none of these conditions applying here, AFAICT). Similarly, per WP:PRIMARY (another core policy), Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Yet neither sources published by an article's subject, nor sources covered by PRIMARY, count towards Notability for purposes of Keep or Delete !votes at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Hobby Games: the 100 Best specifically, as I don't have access to the book, but generally from what I remember top-lists like "100 best whatever" aren't considered good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Blankenship, Loyd (1993-08-01). "Pyramid Pick: Amber". Pyramid. #2. Retrieved 2008-02-15.
^ {cite journal|title=Shadow Knight (Preview) and Interview with Erick Wujcik |url=http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=640%7Caccessdate=2006-05-29%7Cjournal=Pyramid|volume=#6|last=Blankenship|first=Loyd}}
^ Lindroos, Nicole (2007). "Amber Diceless". In Lowder, James (ed.). Hobby Games: The 100 Best. Green Ronin Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-932442-96-0. OCLC 154694406.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no basis to Keep this article. Having sources that are WP:RS is only a small part of the criteria for references to establish notability and the references fail, for example, WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic should be deleted - anything interesting can be put into the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game article. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't be against a redirect to Erick Wujcik but I don't see any point in redirecting to the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game article. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the closer, please note that neither of the above recent !votes have given consideration to the Merge and Redirect arguments (including PRESERVE). Per policy, then, these are not valid as Delete arguments - they are essentially just anti-Keep arguments and cease to be relevant as soon as a Keeo outcome is ruled out. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed your concerns with an additional comment above. I'm against a redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game and slightly more inclined towards a redirect to Erick Wujcik. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear HighKing, I am a bit confused here because according to the article, the company is best known for publishing the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game and I belive Erick Wujcik has a significant role in the development of the game, not the company. Can you please elaborate if I am missing something? Regards, KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. I don't believe this company is "best known" for anything so you have to ask where the best fit is for any worthwhile information. Having read the article on Erick Wujcik and taking into consideration that it already contains a good amount of information on the company, I believe a redirect (if one has to happen - personally, I would just delete the article and not do a redirect) is best suited to the founder and author of most everything the company published. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. Not enough to have a standalone article on this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daman and Diu Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:44, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:46, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable branch organization. Colin Gerhard (talk) 07:55, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himachal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jharkhand Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meghalaya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mizoram Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, all of these MCCs should be merged into the main All India Mahila Congress but I don't think it is productive to do it through AfD, it needs on a single merge discussion (probably on the talk page of the main article). In all likelihood, most of the AfDs are going to be ignored. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment S. M. Nazmus Shakib This is also, almost like spam. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAviator, The same argument is equally true for the article All India Mahila Congress that you and User:Tayi Arajakate are suggesting as a redirect target for these. There is no doubt that these are all political spam. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The target article doesn't fail GNG and it could be kept and I don't see it as political spam. However, I couldn't agree more that the articles I suggested for redirect (i.e. articles that use the _(something)_Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee) are political spam.--WikiAviator (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiAviator, there is an acute lack of sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH for both FOO_state_PMCC articles as well as All India Mahila Congress, if you disagree please present sources complying with it on its AfD. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DBigXray: Thanks for your reply. I could find sources to support the notability of the target page. Will present the sources on the target page's AfD discussion. WikiAviator (talk) 12:39, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzles Orchard, Arizona[edit]

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

Another non-settlement in Cochise Co., AZ, it was actually... an orchard. Really. It is marked as such on older topos, and aerial views still show traces of crop rows. All the buildings here go with the orchard, and a basic search gives a ton of geoclickbait and nothing of substance. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of newpapers.com mentions as an orchard, not a populated place. Good peaches apparently [34][35][36] Reywas92^Talk 08:47, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaland Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu & Kashmir Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Bengal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puducherry Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arunachal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I am also ok if the folks decide to delete this, as there is basically no content to preserve here. IMHO this is blatant political SPAM and should never have been created or allowed to linger in the first place. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:03, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dadra and Nagar Haveli Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshadweep Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adept Press[edit]

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

Promotional article by an IP editor on a for-profit corporation is sourced to a single reference, which is purely incidental in nature. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't see any coverage at all, much less significant coverage. Sources are also lacking and it seems this company may be appropriate to talk about in a section of a different article but not have its own. GoodCrossing (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to recommend it be merged into the article about the guy who created the company, but he doesn't seem to be notable either. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the article on the founder doesn't meet WP:BIO as well. Perhaps this can also go into AfD? GoodCrossing (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoodCrossing - I would also agree the article on the founder is suitable for AfD. Chetsford (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four pages in an RS published book is not "incidental" in nature. Citation in the second book (based on a research paper about the history of role-playing games) highlights the role of founder of Adept Press for the seminal role in developing indie role-playing games. Would seem to indicate notability. Guinness323 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323 since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PRESERVE applies to content within an article, not the existence of the article itself. Our WP:SIGCOV standard is not crested. Chetsford (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer) - PRESERVE does indeed apply to "content within an article", but to be preserved it has to go somewhere. The article on the founder would be the correct location for that content.

Also, there seem to be sour grapes in the nomination, since the terms "promotional" and "incidental" are used by the Nom even though neither term actually applies to this article. The nominator has also misapplied SIGCOV in the above comment, which is below the standard I expect from an Admin, even a relatively "green" one. Perhaps they could strive for more accurate presentation in future. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep I can't see the paper sources coverage, but they are reliable (one I've researched before, the other at least looks quite reliable). The depth of coverage is less clear to me, but it sounds like at least one spans 4 pages. Seems likely to be enough. I'm unclear on how other are claiming the coverage isn't significant. Do those folks have access to these sources? If so, could one of you who say there isn't enough coverage explain what the coverage is (number of pages or paragraphs, topics covered) and explain your !vote a bit better? Thanks! @GoodCrossing: @BonkHindrance: @Chetsford: Hobit (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just read the "Designers & Dragons" reference (Adept is covered in the 00s book) and it certainly looked extremely promising. There is an entire chapter entitled "Adept Press: 2001-Present" which extends from page 131 to 151 - but in reality the book only discusses Edwards and various games in depth, there is no substantive coverage of the company. It is a case really of WP:NOTINHERITED - while Edwards and the games are probably notable, the company fails to meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad someone read it and reported back. Quick question: what would you be looking for in the coverage of the company other the coverage of its products? It sounds like the author thinks they are covering the relevant contributions of the company. But until I can (re)find a copy, I can't add much more. Thanks again! Hobit (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies if this is overly long - I wish there was a shorter way to explain this - maybe someone else can do a better job. There are a lot of "companies" that people assume are notable because, perhaps, the founders are famous or they have a really well-known product. For example, record labels may publish music from very notable musicians but that doesn't mean that the company (record label) is itself notable. We refer to that as "Inherited" notability, the same way that a celebrity's child might be "famous" but only because of the association with the parent. Or perhaps a famous artist has an exhibition in a gallery - same "inheritance" and doesn't mean the gallery is notable. Those are fairly clear-cut (mostly). But what about, say, a well known tycoon (pick any tech billionaire for example) starts a new company and there is some coverage due to the fame of the tycoon. For these references we need to carefully look at each reference. Many will be churnalism where articles regurgitate the initial Press Releases from the company about their famous founder/investor/etc. We search for in-depth information on the *company*. We look for Independent Content which is defined at WP:ORGIND as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That sentence is very important. So articles that rely entirely on information provided/supplied/produced by someone associated with the company is not Independent Content.
    So back to your question. For me, all the "achievements" of the company (in the book) are attributed to one named person, Edwards. Practically every sentence refers to Edwards, not to the company. So for me, the notability is Edwards. Also, if the products are notable then the products should have an article - doesn't mean that the company is notable for publishing them (same as record label companies, book publishers, etc). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually agree with HighKing's analysis here re: Notability. However, the resulting, policy-compliant outcome us then a Merge to the notable topic (Ron Edwards, the principal creative) and a Redirect to the company name, per PRESERVE and BEFORE C.4. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tend to be more conservative on BLPs and for someone who is only notable for a company, I'd rather they redirect to the company than the other way around. And folks often cite BIO1E as a reason for doing so. I'm willing to accept either way, but we clearly have coverage that meets WP:N on this person, and his company's, contributions to the field. We just need to get agrement on where to have the article and where to have the redirect. I'd say that's more of an RfC thing than an AfD thing, but we're here, so maybe this is the right place to finish that. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        My 2c based on what I've read about both the company and the person is that the company fails notability criteria but the person, Edwards, likely meets the criteria for notability, so therefore it makes more sense to keep Edward's topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In looking for references, I came across several journal articles and books which mention or review products made by Adept Press (more than what is in the article currently), but I could find no coverage on the company itself. I have to concur with High King that notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this !vote has not taken into account the Merge and Redirect argument per PRESERVE. It is therefore essentially an anti-Keep argument and does not present any policy-relevant considerations against a Merge/Redirect close. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman & Nicobar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Mahila Congress (there's a typo in the article, which is why it's a red link as All Indian Mahila Congress), adding a paragraph there to mention the existence of the state committees. This little stub is uninformative and unnecessary, and mostly made up of a list which ought to be a category or template. The same applies to all the state committees: can the AfDs be bundled together? PamD 09:41, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as a list page that is useful as an index page with many blue links, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see all the blue links are up for AfD and they have very little information so am changing to Merge them all to All India Mahila Congress imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 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 speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 3. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Professionals Congress[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT Criteria 3: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question.". This is technically on the basis that the nomination is WP:VAGUEWAVE, and per its history an examination of its history would have revealed a merge proposal that should have been considered in per WP:BEFORE criteria C4.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and improve: it already had citations with substantial coverage from national news sources when it was nominated for deletion, and I can see many more in GNEWS. The mission statement fluff needs a clear out, but it's definitely notable according to the criteria in the nomination. Capewearer (talk) 08:52, 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 no consensus. Per procedural keep arguments. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiricahua, Arizona[edit]

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

Next stop on the tour of Arizona non-places is this siding. Yes, that's all it is: a siding on a rail line which was abandoned sometime in the 1980s, if one believes the topos. GMaps actually has a good clue: the remains of a pond a bit to the east which it labels "Chiricahua Siding Tank", presumably to supply water back in the steam era. It's obvious there was never a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pseudo-settlements in Cochise County, Arizona which also represent former sidings on rail lines:

Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A check of newpapers.com does not show evidence of these being notable communities beyond a work camp like [37] or siding as [38], except for Campstone: [39][40]. I would encourage a List of stops of the Southern Pacific Railroad or similar to include mention without the need for separate pages. Reywas92^Talk 08:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forrest. Forrest had a Post Office. I realize that there are differing opinions about the definition "Populated, legally recognized places" as per WP:GEOLAND. I've been using the definition that if a location had a Post Office, then it was legally recognized. If there is no disagreement about this, then perhaps "Arizona Place Names" could be searched as part of the WP:BEFORE process? I appreciate Mangoe's efforts in cleaning up non-notable places, but I also want to minimize the amount of work. If we don't agree that a Post Office indicate a "Populated, legally recognized place," the we should follow up on Wikipedia_talk:Notability (geographic_features). Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stark. Stark had a Post Office. Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanar. Vanar had a Post Office. Many thanks to Pontificalibus for their edits. Cxbrx (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forrest, Stark, Vanar per Cxbrx. Also keep Manzoro due to notable mine there. Campstone was the station serving Huachuca City, Arizona (source) so should redirect there. I suspect some of the others may have been settlements e.g. Chiricahua but it's difficult to search as some of the words have more common usages.----Pontificalibus 09:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep Olga as this map (key) shows there were a number of dwellings located there.----Pontificalibus 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Olga. That is a nice looking map! I agree that Olga had what look to be dwellings. However, it seems that Olga is not a "Populated, legally recognized place" as per WP:GEOLAND #1 - there are no citations for a Post Office or form of local government. I'm seeing [Results_of_Spirit_Leveling_in_Arizona_18 references to Olga Siding], so WP:STATION would apply. WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition" says "any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" I don't think we have found the non-trivial coverage yet for Olga. Perhaps Olga should be deleted? BTW - there is a List of places in Arizona that looks to be a dump of GNIS. The Arizona list is far too long when compared with List of places in California. And while I'm at it, most of the Arizona pages use https://arizona.hometownlocator.com as a source. It looks to me like https://arizona.hometownlocator.com is an aggregator of GNIS and other public data and is not WP:RS. Perhaps https://arizona.hometownlocator.com should be removed as a reference on these articles? Comments anyone? Cxbrx (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by ”legally recognized” is not clear. I’ve seen claims ranging from “must have its own government” through to “mustn’t be an illegal encampment”. However we tend to keep all named populated places that are more than simply isolated dwellings and not part of some other nearby settlement. This would suggest “legally recognized” means that the name should simply be used by government agencies etc. and has no bearing on the size of the settlement, with “populated place” meaning more than one household. So for example a farmstead named on an official map wouldn’t qualify, nor would a rail siding, but add in multiple houses to either and that is sufficient. As to the sourcing, yes these articles were created in batches relying only on GNIS, so this is part of going through them and deleting those lacking supporting evidence that they ever were populated places. ---Pontificalibus 06:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Manzoro as per WP:STATION. I'm not able to find a Post Office at Manzoro. For example, 1906 railroad reference has Manzoro in italics, indicating that there was no Post Office at that time. So, I don't think that Manzoro is a "Populated legally recognized place." Pontificalibus' citations and others indicate that Manzoro was a loading point for the mines, but I'm not sure if this is notable enough. If the mines or mining district are notable, then they should have their own pages. Cxbrx (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Given the wide range of notabilities of these articles, a WP:MULTIAFD was inappropriate. Some of these are obviously notable, others obviously non-notable, many in between. There's too much here to analyze in one AfD. I will note, however, that having its own post office is absolutely not necessary to pass WP:NPLACE, though it is sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on another discussion, having a post office is not sufficient evidence of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we can reach a consensus about this, please comment in Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place?. Cxbrx (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per Smartyllama.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Apache Powder Company. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curtiss, Arizona[edit]

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

Another GNIS-hallucinated "populated place", it's actually a "station" (in this case, a small yard just south of an industrial lead) outside St. David, Arizona which has plainly never been a settlement. As a rule we haven't considered these spots-on-the-railroad to be notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This is the location of the Apache Powder Company. I found several newspaper articles from the 1920s that refer to this company being located in Curtiss, Arizona. The rail stop there went by the same name. No indication that this was a populated place or human settlement. The company is definitely notable, so I just wrote a short article. Redirect to this company as there is no evidence of usage not associated with the company. MB 06:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nice work MB. Reywas92^Talk 08:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Analog Horror, (Communicate) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Analog Horror[reply]

Robert V. Bartlett[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG because it doesn't show how Robert V. Bartlett is notable. He just seems like an average school teacher who doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article. --Analog Horror, (Communicate) 03:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to pass WP:NACADEMIC #5 (see [41] as a better explainer of his career than the article). Not sure about #2 (don't know how important the Fulbright Senior Scholar is). Some of his works are recorded by Google scholar as having a decent number of citations [42], so may pass NACADEMIC #1. I don't know enough of the terminology of academia to say keep strongly, but it looks to me like notability exists for Mr. Bartlett. Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 03:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC criteria #5. This dude is currently the Gund Chair of Liberal Arts at UVM and "Distinguished Fulbright Chair of Environmental Policies at the Turin Polytechnic Institute and University in Italy" as seen here. Bait30 ^Talk? 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added seven reviews of four of his books to the article, found only through searching jstor (probably more can be found elsewhere). So as well as WP:PROF#C5 (which is anyway an easy keep) I think he also passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he holds a chair and it cited quite a bit: [43].--Eostrix (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator. I realized that he actually is notable Analog Horror, (Communicate) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Analog Horror[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Armani[edit]

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

No citations beyond the personal web site of the individual the article references. On first glance the article appears to be a cited piece with links to dozens of other wiki topics but there are no citations or references to show notability other than a personal web site. The subject does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is nothing more than a PR page with nothing to back it up. Jimmydanglewood (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a performer, she appears to be fairly notable in the general sense of the word. However, in Wikipedia terms it appears that there's little about her that can be used as detailed, reliable sources for her page. These two news articles seem fine, but they're both uncomfortably promotional and maybe could be challenged. Perhaps her work has received different sorts of coverage in non-English publications? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They are both very promotional and don't support notability. I did a bit of digging and cant find much past these two which may be paid press releases. Its also odd that the original creator of the page deleted their account and quite a few look to have done very minor edits only linking other wiki pages. Possible sock puppets.Jimmydanglewood (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a poorly-written article and it's disappointing to see how many editors have boosted their edit count over the last 10 years by tweaking it variously, without making much improvement. I think I've now improved it, by adding a handful of references which appear to show notability (and fixing slanted apostrophes, avoiding "currently", removing inline external links...). Between them the sources I've added probably support much if not all of the text but I don't have the degree of interest to go through and add refs to support each statement. PamD 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references added are built to promote individuals and are not reliable. You can find services to post press pieces on the referenced sites on Fiverr and other gig sites for less than 20 dollars. Annemariecarney (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am going to agree with annemariecarney. The sources are not strong and at best a bunch of PR pieces, and there seems to be some sock puppet issues with multiple COI editors. Jimmydanglewood (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmydanglewood, if you are the nominator, I don't think you're also allowed to vote—your nomination counts as your "Delete" vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There are quite a few articles out there, which I believe would qualify as significant coverage, but I don't feel that I am in the best position to evaluate Armenian sources. If someone can provide some guidance in this respect, I'll happily update my vote accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,Not much coverage with reliable source to be notable Alex-h (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator and Annemariecarney have been blocked for Sockpuppetry. --Michael Greiner 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD.The Living love^{( Talk to me)} 06:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the good work of User:PamD in improving the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:29, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Huck[edit]

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

There’s a lot of detail in this article but a search for sources does not show sustained coverage and this is possibly an attack page. Anyway the notability of the subject is doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough here to really overcome not news objections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, routine criminal (yes, routine, even if high-dollar). No indication of lasting notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:29, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Liye Bro[edit]

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

The article creator is determined to have this article in mainspace, in spite of the existence of a draft here and an attempt to redirect. I'm guessing a PROD would be removed. However, it's entirely unsourced, and no reliable sources are on Google. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, no sources at all. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep -- Is The Indian Express not a reliable source? [44]. Other seemingly useful links: [45], [46]. matt91486 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt91486: ibtimes is a fake news website. iwmbuzz seems to fail as reliable source. Only one reliable source is not enough to establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's own article on on the International Business Times does not seem to indicate it being a fake news website particularly clearly. It might not be a particularly *good* news outlet, but if I take the article at face value, there is little indication that it would be unreliable in providing coverage of a television program. matt91486 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: apologies. I misread the title, confusing it with another similarly spelled title. Even still, only two reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notabilty. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set number of sources needed to establish notability. In this case, given WP:TVSERIES, I find it sufficient. matt91486 (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per discussion above. WP:TVSERIES states Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a topic should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a topic should be included. Only because this TV series was nationally braodcast, doesnt make it automatically notable. Coverage in one reliable source is not significant coverage. We also have to consider current persistent attempts of production companies from India to create wikipedia articles of their TV shows, and actors; during the publicity/marketing campaigns. As per WP:COMMONSENSE, PR, paid news/reviews, WP:ROUTINE coverage is bound to take place. At least 2-3 reviews (not capsule reviews), and/or significant coverage is required for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:06, 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morwalela Seema[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY Sulfurboy (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contrary to what the nominator says, this article passes WP:NFOOTBALL, having played for Botswana at internaional level per this. Giant Snowman 19:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, All I read in that article is his involvement in an international friendly between Botswana and Swaziland, but not part of a international match at a confederation level. Am I missing something? I'm more than happy to withdraw if someone can point to what I'm missing. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in an international friendly is sufficient for WP:NFOOTBALL. The source also confirms he played in many further international matches - not withstanding the GNG significant coverage he meets from that source. Giant Snowman 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, I guess I'm confused or maybe reading it wrong. Can you point me to where in the WP:FOOTY policy it states that non-notable international friendlies would qualify someone? You may have something going with WP:GNG, but I'm not seeing any other articles that cover the subject (at least not in a non-WP:ROUNTINE manner) and the one linked seems to be very much a fluff piece and relies heavily on statements by the subject making it borderline primary in my opinion. I'd love to save this article, but I'm simply not seeing anything. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I promise I'm not trying to be confrontational here or anything, I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting something WP:NFOOTY, because as I understood it that the international matches have to be competitive meaning friendlies wouldn't be applicable. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As GiantSnowman said, he does in fact pass WP:NFOOTY as friendlies are (generally) considered Tier 1 International Matches by FIFA. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, What then is the purpose of distinguishing "competitive" international matches in the policy if all international matches count? Was there a previous discussion or clarification of the policy? Again, as I said above, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to find out where this is clearly outlined. The other issue would be is I'm not seeing any official record of these games other than primary mentions in the article. We have no way of confirming (so far) that these were sanctioned by FIFA or if these players were even officially representing their countries. If everyone wants to say any international friendly is enough to pass NFOOTY, fine. But there needs to be some sort of non-primary source to support it. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Competing in a "competitive international match" is a separate way one can earn notability, aside from competing in a Tier I international match. The guideline is quite clear about that. This means that someone who competes in a CONCACAF Gold Cup match between Martinique and Haiti passes NFOOTY even though Martinique is not a FIFA member and as such it is not a Tier I International Match. However, someone who only competed in a friendly between Martinique and Haiti would NOT pass NFOOTY, as that is not a Tier I International Match, nor is it a competitive international match. As Botswana and Swaziland are both FIFA members, a friendly between them is considered a Tier I International Match under FIFA rules. I don't know how the guideline can be any clearer that all Tier I International Matches count, or why discussion would be required to make sure it says what it clearly says. Smartyllama (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, Thanks for clearing that up. That still leaves the issue about a lack of a non-primary source confirming this match in fact happened, that it was sanctioned, and was actually endorsed by the player's mother countries. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Standard seems to be a major newspaper. I have no concerns about its reliability. There are not going to be many online sources for a match that long ago. This is fine. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty likely to meet GNG given that the one source in the article discusses them in significant detail, and regards him so highly decades later. But how does a match against Swaziland meet NFOOTY? ELO rankings do incorporate non-FIFA matches - such as Martinique - but says the first match against Swaziland was not until 1986, after this player apparently retired! Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's one excellent GNG source in the article. The players hasn't played in about 35 years, and I can't even find online Botswanan sources anywhere close to that old. There's be huge BIAS if we eliminated such articles. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mitchell (comedian)[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as well as WP:ARTIST Less Unless (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the 3 sources in the article, there's barely a single source about him. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ARTIST is for creative types who make things. From the page: "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals". Comedians not included.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, comediants are within WP:ENTERTAINER, which he also fails. Less Unless (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yani Mo[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well as WP:SINGER Less Unless (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any substantial, reliable sources. Only a couple secondary mentions that don't show notability. Whisperjanes (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Charitably it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. All that can be found on this singer are very brief promotional announcements and some articles on other things with which she was briefly associated. Her own music does not have the necessary level of reliable media coverage to indicate that she has moved beyond self-promotional mode. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Academic Centers[edit]

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

I came across this article when reverting vandalism. Looking at it after my revert, I noticed that it was outrageously promotional, and started trimming - it quickly became apparent that there was no content that wasn't supported by either a press release republished in the local press, a Google search, or a dependent source. Checking for sources online, I could find nothing to indicate that this entity would pass WP:NCORP; therefore, delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tutoring center, not a school. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to deletion, I propose to Merge it into Henry Nicholas#Education, though there is not much to merge. The Centers are already mentioned there, and the only reason this is talked about at all seems to be the rich guy who founded it. Given the lack of reliable sources, I agree the Centers should not have their own article. PJvanMill (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign this center is different from any other tutoring centers. Alex-h (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not significant enough to warrant merging. Dorama285 (talk) 20:02, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Posture[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Related to Missionary position. Störm (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:49, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Bande Ali Husaini[edit]

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

Non notable person. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if he could be verified, he was run of the mill - a judge in one smallish city. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian eagle (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page, we can add a hatnote to the Coat of arms article if determined necessary. Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But then we will continue confusing the award (less important) and the symbol (which gave the name to the award), i do think it is nice to have a disambig page. --Andrei (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONEOTHER - The award would be the primary topic, since the name is the exact phrasing. You could then put a hatnote at the top to point from the award to the symbol. Like . Hog Farm (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A disambiguation page is not required per WP:ONEOTHER. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and retarget Silesian eagle to Silesian Eagle; ONEOTHER clearly applies in this scenario. A hatnote was added in this revision. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is useless and pointless to have such a disambiguation page. Abishe (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ELINEPA[edit]

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

Cites no refs, I couldn't unearth much more with a preliminary WP:BEFORE. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage; very little to nothing in Google news newspapers, and books. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete In Greek only some listings, and self-references exist. The article is ovbiously a promo, since its creator user Vassiliades appears to be the president of this society (cf. this, "Πρόεδρος Δρ. Δημήτριος Θ. Βασιλειάδης" = "President Dr. Dimitrios Vassiliades"). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:14, 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 no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaruku Yaaro[edit]

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

This film is under sourced and not notable. This page was created for a film that has highly negative reviews and has been mocked by other films. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A bad review is still a review and contributes towards establishing notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree with Eastmain. I havent performed the search yest, but the "critical reception" section in article is unsourced. There some interesting arguments in previous AfD, but they were not based on policies. I am totally in for bypassing the bureaucracy on the basis of WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, as long as it can be proven what was claimed in previous AfD (December 2009). The film doesnt pass the WP:NFILM. As I didnt perform a search yet, I dont know if the film passes WP:GNG. In case it doesnt, it can be selectively merged with lead actor Sam Anderson (Tamil actor)'s article, who currently has a stub-class article. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, which review are you referring to vote keep. I would like to assess it. Please share the links. DBig Xrayᗙ 13:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Undersourced and should be cleaned up, but I see notable actors have starred in it. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the only source I was able to find, but it is about the film's star, not the film itself: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Sam-Anderson-from-Erode-goes-viral/articleshow/17083300.cms Dflaw4 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Nominator: Hi, DragoMynaa, do you have access to the negative reviews which you referred to in your nomination? It would be helpful to see them for the purposes of this discussion, I think. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not have any. Based on other Tamil films that mock his role in this film, this film was not popular/notable (ran only in 4 theatres^[1]) but was notorious. This article should exist only if sources relating to this film are found. --DragoMynaa

Okay, thanks, DragoMynaa. I don't feel in a position to vote on this one, but I agree with you—sources are needed. I would, however, argue that notoriety (supported by sources, of course) is equivalent to notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 27 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jehanzeb Aziz[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - May pass WP:ENT #3. Unsourced. Smells of (self-?) promotion.--89.206.117.157 (talk) 20:43, 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 delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father (The Avengers)[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any in-depth discussion or analysis of this character, the article is pure WP:PLOT and in the linked sources (those that I can access) nor in my general BEFORE, as I said, I am not seeing anything useful, through the search here is made pretty difficult due to the character's super generic name. Can anyone find any sources that discuss this character in depth and beyond pure plot summary? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:18, 12 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} 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nom said, the super generic name makes it a bit difficult to search for sources, but I was unable to find anything in reliable, secondary sources that were in-depth. It might be able to be used as a redirect to The Avengers (1998 film), as the character apparently had a much larger role in the film than the original TV series. But, the utter generic quality of the name leads me to believe it would not be a particularly useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mother (The Avengers). Artw (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence why we need a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is completely unsourced, and therefore fails GNG. Mother (The Avengers) already covers everything that is not in-universe information said here, and the title is too generic to be a redirect.Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:21, 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 Ron Edwards (game designer). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It Was a Mutual Decision[edit]

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

Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and Redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer) per WP's core content policy, PRESERVE. And the article concerns a BOOK, not a "commercial product", for those keeping score at home. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In principal I don't have an issue with Redirect (I'd oppose Merge out of concern the content here would be UNDUE for a bio of this length, plus I'm going to nominate the BLP for deletion anyway shortly), my only trepidation is that the term is so common that it is unlikely to be the most sought subject for this search. But, ultimately, I don't think Redirect would be the worst decision. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are already three independent RS for that BIO, so the nomination would be more pointless than the Marcus Rowland nomination. But wasting other participants' time at AfD is apparently what some people can't help but doing. Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:42, 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 Ron Edwards (game designer)#RPGs and supplements. There were some sources found, but it's questionable whether most of them are WP:RS. The redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, complies with WP:ATD, and preserves the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S/lay w/Me[edit]

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

Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There seems to be a very lengthy rabbit hole of non-notable pages associated with Adept Press and or D&D in general. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how do we even know this thing exists. ⌚️ (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . This fails WP:GNG entirely.Quarterto500 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good coverage in (RS) Applecline, review on a Polish gaming website, two listed reviews in French magazines, seems to meet WP:GNG Guinness323 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Agree on Applecline. The other sources appear to be blogs and user review sites. Chetsford (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish website is a professional on-line portal with reviews of various media, and is hard to characterize, since it uses reviews from both paid editorial staff and users. The review chosen for this article is by a staff editor. The two French magazines are exactly that, printed (hardcopy dead tree) magazines. Again, not blogs.Guinness323 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The review chosen for this article is by a staff editor. That's not how it appears to me. The two French magazines are exactly that, printed (hardcopy dead tree) magazines. The fact that something appears on paper does not make it WP:RS. In any case, Le Maradeur is an ezine. I am unable to identify any method or manner of subscribing or buying an issue and it has no ISSN. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction The name of the Polish website is Poltergeist (polter.pl), not Locke & Key. I was taken in by a large title-like ad for the upcoming TV series Locke & Key. Duhhh!Guinness323 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, it happens. In a lot of RPG AfDs we find people furiously google the name of the game or game company and then slap up the first things they can find, often having never heard of the blogs before, and then construct an argument as to why it's RS post facto. This is a frequent result of this approach to WP:N analysis, so no worries. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness323 since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer)#RPGs and supplements, where this game is mentioned. It appears that only one review comes from a reliable source, and one reliable review is not enough to establish notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Bobo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF Sulfurboy (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Per the pointing out of how this person passes WP:AUTHOR
Keep - I think it should be kept, but the last four references should be replaced, because after reading a few paragraphs, she seems to be notable. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 03:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Horror, Can you explain why you think the person is notable? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, it's because she made films and wrote books and interviewed black people to see how they were going through life and she also studied black feminism. I think she is notable.

I kindly ask that you state what wikipedia policies you think are applicable to denote notability. The things you stated don't really make someone inherently notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are two reviews of her books [47] [48]. Her article The Color Purple: Black women as cultural readers has been cited 285 times according to GS, and she has several other articles with a moderate number of citations. WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF look plausible. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching only jstor found six reviews of three books, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and her Black women as cultural readers at least is heavily cited as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets WP:AUTHOR as David Eppstein and others have outlined. You can see some citations of her works on Google Books as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:26, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turing Research[edit]

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

as per my prod: this is nothing more than original research, TR isn't an institute, it's a research group and all the sources that even make mention of it are just bylines by the authors, which are self published by the page creator. The rest of the sources make no mention of "turing Research" Praxidicae (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary paragraph to George Mason University#Science and Technology but delete article per nom. There's no independent articles on this group, although Googling "Turing research" even in quotes brings up tons of articles not related to this group. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The London School of Economics article mentions the Turing Group (link: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/02/17/the-use-of-robots-and-artificial-intelligence-in-war/). They are also mentioned in the following workshop paper, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.08670. The group also has a LinkedIn page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/turing-research/. It is a funded institute. I'm an avid AI enthusiast, and I thought Wikipedia needs to be updated with more AI groups in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar19 (talk • contribs)
Based on Wikipedia's definition of a research institute, "A research institute or research center is an establishment founded for doing research. Research institutes may specialize in basic research or may be oriented to applied research". The Turing Research group is an accurate representation of that definition. Therefore, it is an official research institute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar19 (talk • contribs)
This article is not an orphan, it is linked from George Mason University#Science and Technology's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar19 (talk • contribs)

All research institutes have to perform original research, among other activities. Turing research has a well-known name in AI and the Washington, DC area (i.e. at the US government).

Based on the "list of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates", the Turing Research page adheres to the following policy/guideline name:

Academics WP:ACADEMIC WP:PROFESSOR Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "Notability requirements for people based on academic achievements" fbatarse

Akumar19 It would be helpful if you would read the sources you're citing are reliable and give an indication of notability. The first one you cite explicitly says: This blog post expresses the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. and it was clearly by someone with a name remarkably similar to your username. Linkedin is irrelevant, as is the rest. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications". So the publications by this group are a valid representation of their research activity and national recognition fbatarse

Please learn how to properly edit AFDs as you're messing up all the responses here including refactoring many of them. Also you can quote that as much as you want fbatarse but it's meaningless without actual sources to back it up. Please go read WP:COI while you're at it. Praxidicae (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Please read the guidelines on those discussions, you are not supposed to be addressing the debaters in an aggressive manner as you are, you are supposed to be discuss the page itself. WP:COI is clear and not violated in any form. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)fbatarse (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When they're violating the rules with regards to how discussions work on Wikipedia, yes Praxidicae is allowed to call them out, especially when they're refusing to listen. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Please address the multiple previous comments, you ignored most of them. the case is made using Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and other wikipedia rules and regulations. fbatarse (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Notability (academics) does not apply to research groups or institutions, and nothing I see in the sources indicates Yang, Batarseh, or TR are notable under any of the criteria (TR would fall under WP:Notability (organizations and companies), but the sources there don't even come close to cutting it as they're almost all written by one of TR's principals and the rest are staff listings). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A blog entry is not a reliable source. Is this really the best source that can be found? Akumar19 notes that this article is not an orphan, and points to George Mason University#Science and Technology, that's because just externally linked it there in violation of WP:ELNO and then later changed it to a wikilink, without even citing a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not a place to publish your own research. I don't see that this meets notability criteria, either. Waggie (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please sign your comment appropriately — Preceding unsigned comment added by fbatarse (talk • contribs)

My comment is signed appropriately. Yours, interesting, is not. Waggie (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice of what to call out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all the reasons for deletion are appropriately addressed. This discussion needs to be based on Wikipedia rules, and that is our reference, not personal opinions.

fbatarse (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read said "rules", fbatarse Including those about your undisclosed WP:COI. Praxidicae (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

o, they aren't. None of your sources work towards satisfying WP:Notability or WP:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:Notability (academics) does not apply to research groups), as they're self-published papers coauthored by the group's members or short blurbs written by and about same. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the references are published by many authors, and they are not self-published. fbatarse (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to reread what you just wrote. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to many pages of other research groups, they are the same - this meets all requirements. fbatarse (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't judge an article's existence on whether other articles in a similar topic area exist or not, and this article does not satisfy WP:Notability or the relevant alternate criteria. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This clearly fails to meet any of our notability guidelines. Those defending the article are simply an embarrassment to this research group, and seem to be lacking in any old-fashioned human intelligence, let alone the artificial kind. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New users: The thing that can save this article is to provide independent, reliable sources that discuss this group directly and in detail. Not papers authored by its members, not its members' proseless pages at their universities. Certainly not pointing out other articles that also fail our inclusion criteria - see WP:Other stuff exists for why that isn't a valid argument. —Cryptic 21:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the reliable, secondary sources necessary for WP:GNG just aren't there. Reyk _YO! 05:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not easy for a research group at a university to qualify as wiki-notable, and there is no indication that this is an exception. The WP:PROF notability guideline invoked above is inapplicable, because it's for people, not groups. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible that this subject could meet our notability guidelines. However, to do so we would need to see a list of their notable accomplishments, viz. has Turning Research produced any results that have been written up in the mainstream media, & clearly are not PR releases? Until that can be provided, any article on TR is doomed to return to WP:Articles for Deletion & be removed from Wikipedia. (A more successful solution might be to add something to the Research section of George Mason University; that article lacks any mention of this unit.) Until those notable successes are provided, all I see that could be written is that TR "specializes in artificial intelligence and data science applications helping to make public policy decisions" -- hardly the basis for a useful article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with adding this to the list at George Mason University#Centers and institutes and redirecting there if this name is unambiguous (I think it's quite likely that, given the stature of Alan Turing, other research institutes exist with this name), but do we have any independent reliable sources that do any more than give us the name? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And/or an entry at Alan Turing#Posthumous tributes. There are many more appropriate places in Wikipedia for this group than an orphan article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and include in the list at George Mason University#Centers and institutes without a redirect. There are various other research groups with similar names, most notably the Alan Turing Institute - if you Google "Turing Research", you come across quite a lot of them before finding this group. As others have said, WP:NORG would apply here rather than WP:NPROF, and the available sourcing I can find does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH standards. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:50, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altur Santos[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Provided sources are softball interviews and/or less-than-reliable blog posts. Searching for sources online, I found nothing, even when searching for Dominican newspapers and Latin American pop culture publications. N.b. that according to the article, Santos has released one single, with no mention of other recordings or performances. The article has also been primarily edited by editors that appear to have COIs. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedily if possible. Non-notable, sourced to black hat SEO fake news site to inflate importance. Praxidicae (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Cinadon36 22:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undisclosed, paid-for spam. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. GSS ^💬 04:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strongly deserves deletion. Dorama285 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://cinema.vikatan.com/tamil-cinema/123854-sam-anderson-in-appo-ippo-series-8

[Pyr2-1] Blankenship, Loyd (1993-08-01). "Pyramid Pick: Amber". Pyramid. #2. Retrieved 2008-02-15.

[Pyr6-2] {cite journal|title=Shadow Knight (Preview) and Interview with Erick Wujcik |url=http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=640%7Caccessdate=2006-05-29%7Cjournal=Pyramid|volume=#6|last=Blankenship|first=Loyd}}

[HG-3] Lindroos, Nicole (2007). "Amber Diceless". In Lowder, James (ed.). Hobby Games: The 100 Best. Green Ronin Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-932442-96-0. OCLC 154694406.

[4] ttps://cinema.vikatan.com/tamil-cinema/123854-sam-anderson-in-appo-ippo-series-8

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]