Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 February	24 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Griffon[edit]

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

This deletion discussion was created in response to the delete outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination).

Let's all assess the sources, shall we?

3-4, 8-11, 13-14, 18, 20, 29, 31-32, and 34-39 are well, The Moon Griffon Show. Unquestionably primary.
19 is his site. Not independent.
2 and 16 are "permanent dead link": no possible way to assess if they meet GNG.
6 and 7 verify the existence of some other person but are not related to Griffon. 23 to 24 do the same thing as the above for a second person. 25 to 27, ditto for a third one. 28, fourth.
5, 12, and 17 are obituaries about other people. Face glance says not about him.
15 is a Facebook profile that's clearly owned by someone other than Griffon.
21 is someone else's site. Mentions a "Griffon Award" but that's it.
22 is some database entry about a book on a bookstore website. All it does is verify that someone he hosted wrote that book.
30, 33, 40, and 41 are news articles that don't mention Griffon.
1 is the only independent reliable source that does anything to be substantially about Griffon - several paragraphs (a few with soundbites of him) but that's it - and even then it's technically about another person.

For such a prominent political commentator, there is, like with Kyle Kulinski, no substantial RS coverage of this person, making it near-impossible to write a Wikipedia article on him. Also his career with the Louisiana–Monroe Warhawks men's basketball team doesn't seem to meet WP:NCOLLATH, but I'll see if any evidence comes forward to meet GNG.

I found two more [1] [2] but they're possibly local-interest so I'll go to AFD to see if any of them count.

I'll also ping Guy who started the first AFD.

Complicating the issues is that the creator has been banned for "for persistent, ongoing and large-scale unwillingness or inability to follow Wikipedia copyright policy". ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 23:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another prime Billy Hathorn WP:REFBOMB, not seeing significant independent coverage for local talking head. Reywas92^Talk 00:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost "because Billy Hathorn", since most of his articles were spam, but in fact due to the analysis above. Guy (help!) 12:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the poster child for WP:REFBOMB. If you discount the primary sources (around half of the citations), the citations used to check details and trivia on other people (there's a citation to verify that is co-host was a Democrat, another to assert that is brother-in-law is a Republican and another to check that some guest on his show is a car dealer by profession, just to give an idea of the amount of padding), the dead links and the obituaries of several random people, there's nothing on the subject himself. It's actually amazing, this is an article literally built on sources that do not mention the subject. In a WP:BEFORE, I could not find significant coverage of the subject for the article to meet WP:GNG so delete it is. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presumptively per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. MER-C 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above analysis. Another citation overkill article by WP:BILLYHATHORN. _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a local talk show host and nothing more. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Corbell[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. The refs are all dead links or passing mentions. Searching does not turn up any in-depth coverage. MB 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Article has been updated with new resources and fixed broken links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) — Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Volcom2015 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Weak Delete: I don't think the sources provided in the article constitute WP:SIGCOV, and a lot of the sources aren't reliable, either. I couldn't find anything else, so I don't think WP:GNG is quite met. However, I wasn't able to access the LA Times article provided, and, in terms of his career as a stuntman, the subject has done quite a bit of work. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Comment Added reliable resource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC) — Lukepiper12 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Volcom2015 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Hi, Lukepiper12, thank you for your work on the article. I'm afraid you can only vote once, though, so I've taken the liberty of striking your second "Keep" vote and renaming it as a "Comment". Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“keep” Added notable resource. If this resource is rejected please document why it is used as a reliable source on a variety of wiki articles in which it has been deemed reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welement (talk • contribs) 17:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG, and total lack of reliable sources. In 2007, I might have assumed good faith from a person trying to put up a page like this, but in 2020 the sock-puppetry and alleging a self-punished source is "another reliable source" sounds like one of my lower school kids trying and failing at making up a story. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and there is not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to support a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Way[edit]

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

The page creator has requested deletion under WP:CSD#G7 citing "Deleting page as Mitchell no longer wants this on Wiki" but there are a few too many edits by others for me to be comfortable with G7 deletion. Nevertheless, it seems like there is a valid subject request as well as notability concerns: A quick WP:BEFORE check didn't show any evidence of notability, but then the name is shared with some streets so perhaps I didn't catch any. It doesn't look like WP:NMOTORSPORT would apply either as the Truck Series by their page don't seem to qualify for its #1 or #3 criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete One article in a local paper does not notability make. I can find nothing else except listings showing that he is/was a member of the team. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan national football team head to head[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was: "This article is not needed. We already have Uzbekistan national football team all-time record, which provides a breakdown of their overall results against each other nation, as well as Uzbekistan national football team results, which lists their results chronologically. Providing a chronological list of their results against individual opponents is WP:CRUFT." Another user claims this is not an appropriate use of PROD, which is nonsense, but I guess here we are. I look forward to seeing them !vote "Delete". – Pee Jay 21:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 21:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to one of those existing articles as WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 13:46, 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) 23:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Becon[edit]

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

He existed, but how did he meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? Thomas Brceon was written about, rather than Basil. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability.Jahaza (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- His father was notable and has am article in Oxford DNB, but he was no more than a NN clergyman. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 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 Cascadia (independence movement). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BC Cascadia Party[edit]

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

It exists, but no indication of how it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage for apparent joke party. Two losing candidates in one election is not notability and their website is dead already. Reywas92^Talk 22:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Redirect to to Cascadia (independence movement) or keeping as a Stub. The movement is real if small. It has advocates in British Columbia Canada. Given the state of politics today a stub is warranted at best and a redirect at worst. Philoserf (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there's even enough reliable data for a redirect. There is no evidence of secondary sources covering this party in more than one sentence. Protean Self (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It is a sincere political party. If there is not sufficient references for its own article, it is significant enough to note in Cascadia (independence movement) which I have done here based on the references provided. maclean (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidental electric shocks on railways in Romania[edit]

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

This is the essence of triviality, and a clear violation of NOT INDISCRIMINATE. Neither the events, & certainly the details, do not belong in an encyclopedia . If we include this, it would make just as much sense to include lists of everyone who died in any sort of transport related accident. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, overly specific. Millions of people die every year in non-natural ways, they should not all be listed even if the news reported individual incidents. Reywas92^Talk 21:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. All victims unnamed and non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This is useful information to learn from. It may not get as much coverage as some random famous person or a cartoon show on television gets, however Wikipedia isn't just popular culture, its also an encyclopedia of useful information. These things always get news coverage so are notable to include here. Got a lot of great articles like this at Category:Lists of people by cause of death Dream Focus 23:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. These kinds of things often don't even get news coverage, but operators publicize them to scare people away from the dangerous equipment. Most of the lists in Category:Lists of people by cause of death only include notable people, or at least notable deaths. These are neither. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Pafsanias (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Too many non notable incidents get added often[3][4] and as such this should be deleted. An article with a wider scope covering notable incidents can be created however. Kaweendra (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. It is both too narrow - just those in Romania - and too broad -- How does one define "accidental" electric shocks when such are so common and often not witnessed nor properly documented? Bearian (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are not so many accidents as to be overwhelming less than 10 a year is not indiscriminate, like say traffic or drowning accidents which is a slippery slope logical fallacy to compare with. Article is well sourced supporting every item, the complaints of non-notable incidents do not make sense given all the sourcing. The list has precise criteria for inclusion. It is maintained well and up to date, there are editors who care about this article and manage it. There is no Wikipedia requirement that only notable people be included in "List of" articles it passes WP:LISTN -- GreenC 15:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Falah College[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no acceptable content WP:WPSCH/AG- suspect logo is copyvio ClemRutter (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete facebook is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source is a broken link to Facebook. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some ghits about this college but this is another private college in Pakistan which is non-notable as per RFC on keeping education institutes. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage on the internet and no other type of reference exists in article. GargAvinash (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist seminary ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Now there are thousands of Islamist seminary not clear how this particular seminary is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 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. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan-Ul-Uloom[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist seminary. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are for a different establishment- the rest is a religious statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs)
Delete. The only sources I could find were an incident where 6 students were killed in a terrorist attack at the school. But the articles were not really about the school but about the attack at the school. Notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability has not been established. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing as "delete" based on the nomination and the "Comments" participation. Otherwise WP:JNN applies. There's too much of that (and also WP:ITSNOTABLE) happening in AfD discussions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Milazi[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. No substantial independent references. He wrote one chapter of a book. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I clicked on over 100 links. I found where he had a column in Off The Wall, in The Sunday Tribune. A piece contributed to Sunday World, was among a long list signing an open letter as a "poet, author and musician, Johannesburg, South Africa" from "Poets World-wide", in support of Hazara (Again, we the poets world-wide are with the Hazara), was quoted in the HeraldLive, "Anyone who claims to have not spoken to our reporter is telling a serious fib. Sunday World stands by its story" said the paper’s editor Abdul Milazi. Poems: The Poet. To read more such as Unborn Dreams, SOLD (Sounds Of the Living Dead), When We Were Free (all from "Writers Lounge" which maybe self-published?), one would have to create an account. I seemed to have missed the sources to back up "multi-award-winning poet", reviews of these, or the book. I found links to allpoetry.com but this is a self-publishing site. There is a list of poems and mention of My Dad: By South African Sons ("listed as co-authored" ) and A Shrine of Dreams, as well as the subject's music genre being "Rock art", at www.literarytourism.com but it was not a secure site. There are sources "out there" but I am not convinced the aggregate of these show enough notability for a BLP encyclopedia article. Otr500 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Kay-Aba Kennedy[edit]

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

promotional article about a non-notable motivational speaker. Not a single reliable independent source that is substantially about her. (The interviews are not indpendent, since they are designed to let her say whatever she wants about hersself) DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides being a self-promotional article created by a WP:SPA, this doesn't meet WP:GNG. GNews turns up articles mentioning workshops, speaking engagements, or other routine matters. Most of the notability assertions in the article fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. There's pieces by her, some articles about her mentor/guru/teacher, and a few industry pieces in newsletters about her. None of these prove she's notable. There's zero coverage of her in reliable sources. She's totally unknown in New York City, the media capital of the world where they literally give away newspapers for free in metal boxes in the subway, and even my brother had a variety show on public access cable TV. There's literally thousands of yoga instructors and coaches in New York City alone, and millions around the globe. We can't have an article about all of them. In 2006, posting this page here could be forgiven, but in 2020, everybody knows that we're not a free web-host for your friend. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Ogunlaru[edit]

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

article about a "life coach"--probably not notable, and certainly very highly promotional, even for articles in this subject. I don't think there is a single independent reference usable to show notability DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article created by a single purpose account about an non-notable life coach and author. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. One of tens of thousands of "life coach[es]". Bearian (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Aam Aadmi Party. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convener of Aam Aadmi Party (Punjab, India)[edit]

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

Redundant content fork as its subject scope is covered under the political party's article. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Aam Aadmi Party (Punjab, India) as an article covering the History of the party in Punjab. And its org structure in Punjab. This is the only other state were AAP has seats and electoral success. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having seats and electoral success doesn't merit a standalone article per WP:BRANCH, relevant information should be merged with Aam Aadmi Party. Several major parties have substantial presence in multiple states but it is does not merit individual articles for each state and is not the standard practice either.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Aam Aadmi Party per WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Name of the article does not justify what is written in the body. Should be merged with main party's article. GargAvinash (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shramik Vikas Sangathan[edit]

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

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The search with the Hindi keywords brought up a good amount of news articles, that are covering this organization and its activities in several states of India. I have posted several news links to expand the article on the Talk:Shramik Vikas Sangathan. Here are a few of them. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] [11][12] [13][14][15] ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 07:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed all these sources by you and none of them are passing WP:ORGCRIT. These sources are of passing mention or WP:ROUTINE coverage of different statement from the office bearers or party event from local newspapers.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DBigXray has provided extensive reliable sourcing on the talk page of the article. It's an officially registered trade union, with representatives on bipartite regional boards, for example Employees State Insurance Corporation. Easily meets ORG, UCS and AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casio CTK-4200[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. No references, no claims of notability. No sigcov that indicates why this product is more special than any other electronic keyboard Rogermx (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:27, 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. The only keep voter's argument - that the subject is notable - cannot carry much weight since it isn't backed up by any sources that would demonstrate that that is the case. I see a consensus to delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Abramov[edit]

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

can't verify anything in this article with reliable sources. It doesn't appear that COS Phones is a notable company either. Aside from basic funding announcements, there's nothing in the way of actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable. The nominator has been wikihounding me.Beritagsier (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a PR piece. Lacking enough reliable sourcing (which LinkedIn is certainly not) and in-depth coverage to establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. There's literally dozens of small start-up firms in the Northeast, and there's nothing in this article that shows how this person is anything beyond an ordinary business person. He sells mobile phone parts, which 20 years ago would impress Mrs. Bucket, but today is really ordinary. Even his choice of charity - children's cancer - is so common. Advice to the author: 1. Please don't accuse an award-winning editor of bad faith. 2. Tell Mr. Abramov to get into another charity say, Williams Syndrome or the local Jewish Community Center? Bearian (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nehrim: At Fate's Edge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable mod - the only reliable source with WP:SIGCOV is a review in PC PowerPlay. Everything else is just minor announcements like an English translation. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep as ModDB's and PC Gamer's mod of the year and plenty of plenty of significant coverage in several publications (Rock, Paper, Shotgun, PC PowerPlay, PC Gamer, GameFront, ...). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any WP:SIGCOV in those cited publications. The Rock, Paper, Shotgun article is simply an announcement that the mod was released in English and a couple paragraphs of casual thoughts about the game, not even long enough or organized enough to make it a review. The PC Gamer one is a small paragraph. There is not enough that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the following coverage:

There's also an entry in the 2017 Guinness World Records 2017 Gamer's Edition, but I can't see it and I'm not sure if we consider that a reliable source. Sam Walton (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found three more significant coverage in reliable sources, like 4Players [16], PC Games [17] and PC Zone [18]. There is also some coverage on Escapist Magazine [19] and two paragraphs in Svet Kompjutera [20] (though not in-depth). Meets WP:GNG combined with some of the sources above (GamesRadar+ bit before the interview part, Eurogamer and PC Powerplay ones, the rest are very poor coverage wise to count). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Jovanmilic97 and Samwalton9. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the newly discovered sources above, article passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rajasthan Times[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMEDIA. Could not find any source. Csgir (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable blog claiming to be a newspaper. No bylines and work seems to be copied from other sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 27 days old (http://whois.domaintools.com/therajasthantimes.in) blog with almost no traffic or individuality. It has no notability coverage. Should be deleted immediately. The9Man | (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is around from 2016. But even Web Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20200501000000*/therajasthantimes.in) doesn't have any info about the past. Something shady here. Seems to be a hijack of the old article. The9Man | (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The9Man, the article most likely refers to (https://www.rajasthantimes.in/) so it does seem like a hijack by the recently created blog. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The9Man I checked the page edits from the beginning. In 2016, the connected domain was therajasthantimes.COM, which was just a normal blog and the domain was not renewed. The owner of therajasthantimes.in simply hijacked this page and pointed it to the new domain. Csgir (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The majority of recent edits have been made by (likely) undislosed paid editing socks, whom I've blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article was created for "rajasthantimes.com" in 2016. It got hijacked by "rajasthantimes.in" on 29 January, 2020. The .com domain is up for sale. Like Мандичка, and The9Man said.in is not notable at all, and is basically a month old blog pretending to be a newspaper. I dont know if .com was a real newspaper or not, but it was not notable for sure. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. We've been hijacked. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Mahatap Tewalai[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for this particular temple. The references are about more general subjects, such as the divinities worshipped there.. DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The final reference in the article is an academic paper directly about the subject.[21] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the lack of significant coverage, this temple is only started nine years old. It fails every factor of my standards of notability for houses of worship. If a single deity or saint were worshiped there, arguably it could be a place or pilgrimage. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inam R Sehri[edit]

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

I fear that all that can be said is that he has been a prolific author of books that he publishes himself (via Grosvenor House Publishing). (His website.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Somewhat sadly. A lot of effort has been put in, but his books are self published through what looks like a vanity press. Can’t see much about him otherwise. Unless someone can provide some actual evidence of notability. Also the article is very poorly formatted. Locochoko (talk) 12:09, 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. Tone 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Tiger[edit]

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

A Kashmiri militant who was in the news for his death. Kashmir is a warzone and local commanders from both side do not become notable after dying, so fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Fails WP:MILPERSON as local commanders of militant organisations are not notable. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:1E ML⁹¹¹ 13:39, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Khateeb[edit]

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

A Kashmiri militant who was in the news for his death. Kashmir is a warzone and fighters from both side do not become notable after dying, so fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Fails WP:MILPERSON as every fighter is not notable. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 08:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VCNS,Pakistan[edit]

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

Same as Chief_of_Naval_Staff_(Pakistan)#Vice_Chief_of_Naval_Staff. – 333 -blue at 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if kept, move to Vice Chief of the Naval Staff (Pakistan), currently a redirect (don't move during AfD). PamD 08:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge to Vice Chief of the Naval Staff (Pakistan) Gbawden (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Vice Chief of the Naval Staff (Pakistan). Clearly notable position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Vice Chief of the Naval Staff (Pakistan). Obviously a very notable position. Was not titled properly and clearly. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:11, 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 Merge to Italian Socialist Party (2007). BD2412 T 05:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party (Italy, 2007, De Michelis)[edit]

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

Short explanation: this party has never been publicly presented, it should have been born from an agreement between two factions of the New Italian Socialist Party, but de facto this party never seems to have been really founded.

There has been a lot of discussion about how to write this page and its title, but the main problem is that this party has never been publicly presented. In 2007 the New Italian Socialist Party (NPSI) split into two factions, and both claimed that name. The book "I simboli della discordia" is the only source citing an agreement between the two factions of the NPSI, which would have sanctioned the birth of this party: however the reality was different, in fact the faction of De Michelis and Del Bue continued to act on behalf of the NPSI until to the definitive confluence in the Italian Socialist Party (2007). In practice, for a short period, there were two NPSIs and this "Socialist party" remained substantially only on the paper of the agreement between the two factions, which both continued to act on behalf of the NPSI. All the information on this page is already explained on the NPSI page, considering that this socialist party has never been publicly presented and that Del Bue and De Michelis have continued to proclaim themselves leaders of the NPSI, I find this page to be misleading and should be deleted. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I saw that this page has been already nominated (under a different name: here), should I move the page, adding (2nd nomination)?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is fine. For reference the previous AfD resulted in no consensus. b uidhe 21:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is quite an useful pieace of a story. Deleting it would make more difficult for readers to understand the complicate history, made of splits and mergers, of the so-called Socialist diaspora, meaning of the remnants of the historical Italian Socialist Party. I think Wikipedia should be inclusive, in order not to let down readers, as well those editors who had spent their time to explain the intricate politics of Italy. --Checco (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Italian Socialist Party (2007). Existed for just over three months and "never acted publicly as such": can be (and already is) covered in the history/formation in the actual party presented to the people. Reywas92^Talk 03:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Reywas92. = paul2520 (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. this separate party should maintain its own separate article.--Autospark (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in the case of merge, I think it is more appropriate to do it into the New Italian Socialist Party's page and not into the Italian Socialist Party (2007)'s one: the same informations are explained in the section New Italian Socialist Party#Caldoro vs. De Michelis, indeed they concern a dispute within the New Italian Socialist Party between the left wing and the right wing of that party. This "Socialist Party (Italy, 2007, De Michelis)" de facto never existed, on 23 June 2007 Del Bue and De Michelis (representatives of the left wing of the NPSI) were appointed secretary and president of the New Italian Socialist Party, not of this "Socialist Party" (apparently never founded), they never followed up on the agreement with the right wing of the party (represented by Caldoro and Barani) and they continued to declare themselves NPSI's members until they joined the Italian Socialist Party (2007) (ergo, this Socialist Party led by De Michelis was never born). I see no reason to maintain an autonomous page for a party that has never even been born. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems to be a People's Front of Judaea situation. We need more input about how to cover it - as a separate article or as part of another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Reywas92. Either that suggested page or a more appropriate one, but absolutely merge it.Locochoko (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Reywas92.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Italian Socialist Party (2007) as suggested by Reywas92. WP:LOSE is not a criteria for keeping. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92, Paul2520, Locochoko, 4meter4, and KartikeyaS343: In the case of merging, wouldn't it be better to merge this page to New Italian Socialist Party? After all, this page was born from the misunderstanding that there was a traditional split, and not that there were two New PSIs at the same time. The same information is written in New Italian Socialist Party#Caldoro vs. De Michelis.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, sure. You clearly know the most about this, and it seems clear this is not notably separate enough to need a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Leads University[edit]

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

Illegal private university [22]. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This universility is declared as ILLEGAL/FAKE by the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan. Fails WP:NCORP and there is not enough coverage to consider WP:ILLCON as well. The9Man | (talk) 07:19, 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. I have stubbed the article to remove copyvio and unsourced content, and requested revdel of infringing revisions. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikiah Brisco[edit]

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

the article's tone looks promotional and it didn't mention sufficient references to the text Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article was copied and pasted from her profile on LSU's sports website. [23] She has won a few NCAA and USATF championships so she may require an article now (not sure if there is sufficient coverage, haven't searched) but the article can be resubmitted without copyright violations. Jozape (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve or stubify. "Brisco was an 11-time All-American and three-time national champion during her days as a LSU sprinter. In 2018, she was the lead leg of the LSU women's 4x100 meter relay squad that set the collegiate record of 42.05 to capture the SEC event title. Brisco, as are many other professional athletes in 2020, is chasing a bid for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo." [24]And there is more RS coverage out there.[25][26] HouseOfChange (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is a kind of WP:TOOSOON to me. The subject has excelled in junior level competitions but yet to make a big impact at senior international level. Abishe (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National champion and clearly competing at a notable level (top 30 in the global 100 m rankings). Also an international gold medallist at the 2019 IAAF World Relays. SFB 02:22, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luis R. Mejia[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability since 2010. It survived PROD back then on the basis the there are hundreds of Google News hits for this name. There are but I can’t find any which are about this individual. Instead I find a notable writer in management topics, a priest, and various other people. Of the five refs in the article two are dead and two are YouTube links. The one valid live one is an announcement of his hiring by the SEC and the only other reliable one I can find us from the announcing his departure a few years later. These are both reliable but not independent, and apart from routine staff pages I don’t see anything else. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. buidhe pointed out that there may be RS in Arabic; if any are located, I am willing to undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KoralBlue Airlines[edit]

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

Article is about a short-lived, defunct charter airline that at one time may have operated three small aircraft on unscheduled routes. Only one reference in the article. BEFORE fails to find additional RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly operated commercial flights and clearly existed per Flight, it could do with more references but that is not a reason to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"clearly operated commercial flights and clearly existed" The mere existence of a thing is not proof of WP:N. I exist but I am not notable. Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was not an insignificant airline in Egyptian terms and the Airbus A320 is not a 'small' aircraft. This deletionist approach to airlines is not helpful. Ardfern (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This was not an insignificant airline in Egyptian terms" Unfortunately, we have to judge articles based on WP's WP:N terms, not on "Egyptian terms", and "there is not a specific inclusion criterion for small airlines". This means we need WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. A one-line mention in a directory, is not SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated already there are not reliable sources on the company. Which is the only thing that matters, per WP:ATA. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, airlines are not inherently notable and this one shows no indication of passing WP:NORG. Renata (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming that no RS exist, it's possible there may be some in Arabic. b uidhe 23:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of military strikes against presumed terrorist targets[edit]

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

The list would, if actually accurate, end up covering a huge amount of cases due to the inherent ambiguity of defining 'terrorist attacks' and 'military strikes', when all those cases are going to be covered by much better defined lists. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SALAT, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." Also does not meet any of the three WP:CSC criteria for lists. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove unsourced or poorly sourced entries. NavjotSR (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list NPOV nightmare and practically unworkable due to vague inclusion criteria. Turkey officially considers every strike against Kurdish organisations an anti-terrorist strike, Israel does the same regarding their strikes against Hezbollah and Hamas. US considered killing Qassem Soleimani an attack on terrorist target, and Iran took same stance on their missile strike against US bases in Iraq! This list is pretty much guaranteed to be a problem ridden mess forever.--Staberinde (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is an anti-American POV piece. I suspect that every attack from Gaza on Israel could be included and certainly Israeli attacks on Gaza and Hezbollah. The "list" is in fact set out as an article, not a list. It also raises the issue of what is a terrorist. Assad regards all his opponents as terrorists, apparently treating the word as a synonym for rebel, so that he regards all civilians in rebel controlled areas as "terrorists" and hence as legitimate military targets. This is contrary to the Geneva Conventions on attacks on civilians. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of current X-League Indoor Football team rosters[edit]

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

X-League Indoor Football is defunct, so there are no current X-League Indoor Football team rosters Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the league has been defunct for several years so a list of current rosters is pointless. Hog Farm (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The league has been defunct since 2015, so this article has been devoid of content for quite some time. It no longer serves any purpose. Delete it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator as it's not really current when it has folded. HawkAussie (talk) 23:29, 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 keep. The consensus was to keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Regan (comedian)[edit]

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

Not relevant, very low quality article. jrabbit05 (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep: A popular and well-known stand-up comedian; a Google News search shows a dozen articles from the last month alone. One example: "Brian Regan Preps for New Netflix Special with Aspen Tour Stop", The Aspen Times (Feb 6, 2020). Lots more. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Found coverage in NPR and the Wall Street Journal, both reliable sources. Passes GNG and AfD is not cleanup. Hog Farm (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: strange that this has been slated for deletion. One look at the article shows he is notable. Locochoko (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This has to be a WP:SNOW keep right? Regan clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. He has had multiple standup specials and has even been featured in Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Bait30 ^Talk? 20:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'm not going to mince words like the rest of the vote!s; WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a proper deletion rationale. Obviously notable comedian just by name glance alone. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's unclear what the exact policy reason for the nomination is. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:24, 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satti Dhillon[edit]

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

Non-notable music video director. The links on the page are to music videos and contain no biographical information about the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. GSS ^💬 04:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:07, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KV Dhillon[edit]

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

Non-notable film producer who has "co-produced" two films of which one is not yet released. Fail WP:GNG and there is no other evidence of independent notability. GSS ^💬 03:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:05, 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 redirect to List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of southern LCRV flora by region[edit]

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

Random collection of and poor sorting of species and regions: not very useful in encyclopedia format. The individual species articles are already categorized geographically. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete There's already List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley, unclear why it needs to be broken into sub-regions. Reywas92^Talk 07:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems a sensible option, especially as it is completely unsourced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this should never been released into article space; it's one editor's unfinished scratch pad that should have stayed in their sandbox. The creator made other lists related to LCRV topics, with a particular emphasis on birds. The LCRV definition used by the creator focuses on the narrow geographic valley through which the Colorado River flows (which has ornithological significance as a major migratory route). LCRV is also a region recognized in plant ecology, but it is the broader area drained by the lower Colorado River and it's tributaries, not just the valley that carries the main branch of the river. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Bierenzon[edit]

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

A badly-translated lift from an other wiki. a bio of a Soviet-era major-general. The body of the article is just a list of positions held, the 3 citations are used to confirm that the man exists, not to establish notability in any way. Zaathras (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Per WP:ANYBIO. He received the Order of the Red Banner and Order of Lenin, both respectively at their time the highest civilian decoration in the USSR (Red Banner was the highest until the establishment of the Order of Lenin). His Russian article should have been consulted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A senior Soviet figure with plenty of sources. It’s not ‘badly translated’ at all. There’s nothing wrong with it (perhaps because of cleanup after this AfD was opened). Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has been significantly improved. Thank you Spokoyni and Мандичка GizzyCatBella🍁 06:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been cleaned up and improved considerably by Spokoyni. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Head of the finance and planning department of the NKVD, deputy head of the Gulag system, in charge of the financial planning works of such mega Stalinist projects as the White Sea–Baltic Canal and the Baikal–Amur Mainline and the system of camps that provided the forced labour for them. Notable enough to have his biography in a string of works such as "Великая Отечественная война. Большая биографическая энциклопедия" (The Great Patriotic War: Large Biographical Encyclopedia), Евреи в КГБ. Палачи и жертвы (Jews in the KGB: Executioners and Victims), Кто руководил НКВД. 1934-1941 (Who Led the KGB. 1934-1941), Тайна сталинских репрессий (The Mystery of Stalinist Repression), Еврей-генералий вооруженных сил СССР: краткие биографии (Jewish Generals of the Soviet Armed Forces: Brief Biographies) etc etc. Spokoyni (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly notable, passing WP:GNG and WP:MILPERSON. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes notability criteria. --MarioGom (talk) 11:14, 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.