Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 February	26 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 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) 01:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda HaKohen[edit]

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

Fluff WP:PROMO article of individual who does not satisfy WP:GNG. Loksmythe (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After looking through the sources, they are a combination of non-independent, subject quoted, puff pieces, and passing mentions. I'm inclined to say that it fails GNG but has anyone tried looking in Hebrew? b uidhe 04:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should have been deleted back in 2007 as a clear promotional effort. Likewise Zionist Freedom Alliance and Magshimey Herut, all of which were largely the work of a single editor (Benny K (talk · contribs)). Number 5 7 11:29, 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 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) 22:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Khan (tennis)[edit]

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

Note: Previously deleted under different name - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Khan (journalist)

Non notable journalist. Most citations self published to the website/forum he works for (PakPassion). Other sources simply demonstrate he has had work published by a couple of other non notable websites. No sources are provided, or can be found, that discuss or mention him as a journalist.

His tennis accomplishments are not even remotely notable and the other claim in the intro of him being a "motivational speaker" are questionable & unsourced. Jevansen (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jevansen (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jevansen (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPBALANCE. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for all this topic, but he is not notable at all for anything tennis related. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:57, 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 Imperial Preference. Tone 21:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial preference[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imperial Preference. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until resolution of other technical discussion The article was reverted back into existence by me pending the resolution of this discussion going on at the Imperial Preference talk on whether Colonial Preference is different from Imperial Preference. Let's not split the discussion into two separate places. Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imperial Preference. The article under discussion is a brief stub. The target is not a wholly satisfactory article in that it may be insufficiently general. The primary usage of both relates to the British Empire, but there may be other cases. The section on pre-20th century is inadequate: it was not related to "old subsidy" but to the Navigation Laws which excluded foreign vessels from British (originally English) colonial trades and required enumerated goods (of colonial production) to be landed in Britain (originally England) and to pay duty there. Alternative arrangements were presumably introduced when the Navigation Laws were repealed. The target article is tagged as being Canada-centric, but that is a matter of editing. If there is a difference, between imperial and colonial preference, the appropriate place for it to be expressed is in an article (such as the target) covering both. The distinction is largely one of period, as British colonies progressed to dominions and with the political changes of the Empire (now Commonwealth), resulting from Statute of Westminster. Attempts to split into the two are misconceived, even if there is a theoretical difference: the breakup of the British Empire was an evolutionary not revolutionary process. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperial Preference. Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Our readers are unlikely to care, and there are already citations available (See Talk:Imperial Preference). Bearian (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperial Preference. I have read the discussion on the talk page, but was unconvinced because of usage in reliable sources of both terms primarily w.r.t. the British Empire, as here:[1]. If there is a difference, Colonial preference should be deleted as it fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Yet my view is that any more general usage of the word is appropriate in the Imperial preference article, because that is where many readers would find it. Having reached that conclusion, I read Peterkingiron's analysis above, which makes the point better. In terms of answering a potential reader's information requirement, a redirect is required. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 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 redirect to Let the Right One In (novel)#Television series. Whether to merge anything from history is up to editors. Sandstein 12:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Right One In (TV series)[edit]

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

Never-aired TV series, consisting of a single unaired pilot episode that was passed on by the TV network that ordered it. Filming finished over three years ago, and it's been dead since then. Fails WP:TVSHOW ("Television pilots that have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles...") TJRC (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable for its own page. The book (which is notable) has a page, Let the Right One In (novel), and this aborted TV series is already referenced there, which is right and proper. There is no need for an additional page, nor any reason to merge anything on this page, as the relevant information is already there. Redirects are WP:CHEAP so no objection to a redirect pointing from this to the novel page if anyone thinks that would be useful. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Let the Right One In (novel)#Television series Unlike most pilot articles this seemed to actually be ordered to series by A&E and TNT, but the latter's discombobulation from the AT&T-Time Warner merger and fallout scrambled a number of things, including TNT's overall programming direction, so this ended up on the outside looking in and the pilot not becoming a series. Nate • (chatter) 14:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for a redirect. No one is going to search on "Let the Right One In (TV series)". If they search on "Let the Right One In" looking for the failed TV show, which I guess is at least imaginable, they'll go to the novel's page anyway. Keeping a redirect is just cruft. TJRC (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maintaining a small-byte redirect page per WP:CHEAP will hardly even be felt by any of the WMF servers...and like everything in Hollywood, there's always a chance a new pilot will go to series in the future. Nate • (chatter) 08:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to target identified by User:Mrschimpf – there is potentially useful content here. We must not "delete and redirect", as suggested by User:Sirfurboy, without a specific reason as to why the page history (not just the article) is problematic. Modernponderer (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little confused by "must not" here. As per WP:DEL-REASON, #8, this article qualifies for deletion because it does not meet relevant notability guidelines. Deletion is appropriate. Moreover there are no talk page edits and minimal page history to preserve. The content of Let the Right One In (novel) already contains a paragraph on the series, fully cited and listing all the main information, including major cast, that could be merged from this page. There is just nothing left to merge. As I have already said, I have no problem with creation of a redirect - but there is no policy reason not to delete this page. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sirfurboy, if a page can be redirected (or merged) there is no reason to delete it by default. You need a separate policy reason to delete said page (i.e. a problematic edit history). Modernponderer (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page cannot be merged. No content on this page can be merged elsewhere. There is also not a strong case to redirect. I only agree that a redirect is possible because redirects are WP:CHEAP. The policy reason for delete is as above. It is not notable per WP:TVSHOW. This show is unaired and receives almost no coverage in WP:RS. It meets the deletion criterion 8 in WP:DEL-REASON. That is the policy reason for deletion. Precisely what content do you propose to merge elsewhere? -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sirfurboy, I am quite baffled as to why you insist so adamantly that the page "cannot" be merged when there is plenty of content that could be used to expand the relevant section of the book's article. Even the entire infobox could theoretically be moved there.

And you still haven't explained why exactly you think it's a good idea to have an entire deletion discussion, wasting an administrator's time closing it and deleting the page, all only to have another user create a redirect at the same title. Modernponderer (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming repetitive, and potentially meta. If you wish to discuss the merits or otherwise of the AfD process, please come and discuss on my talk page. The suggestion of putting an infobox about a TV series that never happened on an article about the book is unlikely to be well received by editors of the book article, who already gave the series a whole section. I am reaffirmed in my view that deletion is appropriate. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Let the Right One In (novel)#Television series: Per Nate. _SUPER ^ASTIG 03:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not looking for an argument here. So, I won't reply any further. I stand by my redirect no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:00, 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 redirect to Neocatechumenal Way. Tone 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neocatechumens[edit]

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

Unsourced, duplicates Neocatechumenal Way, being used as an attack page Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23 do you think this could be changed to a redirect to the primary page of the Neocatechumenal Way? Ncwfl (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the best outcome, and I thought of it as soon as I hit the button on this AFD, but considering the edit-warring going on at the moment around this topic, it probably would not have lasted long if I'd just unilaterally done it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell what the best solution for that will be, but considering that there are no references on that page anyway I don't see why it should exist. If anything it can be added somewhere on the main page as a section if references are found. Ncwfl (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were several references in the material I deleted. They were WP:PRIMARY links to the NCW's statutes, so they did not do a lot for the remnant of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion, since the simple belonging to a school does not confer any specific character to its members.Advocateoftherota (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Redirect to Neocatechumenal Way, whose content for now it would just duplicate. Jahaza (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above; the Neocatechumenal Way article is well developed and would be more useful to the reader. This term should be added to Wiktionary if it isn't there already.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neocatechumenal Way per WP:CHEAP, and a better article can be made by trimming down than by building up. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 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. Tone 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Urwa-tul-Wusqa[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Puffery and total lack of independent coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 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) 22:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National College of Computer Sciences (Gujranwala)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 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) 22:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sargodha Institute of Health Sciences[edit]

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

Nothing significant about this school. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 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. Tone 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logix College[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 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. Tone 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt Mike Battle[edit]

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

This appears to be a niche, self published comic with zero secondary independent sources from reliable sources. A user with the same name as the subject’s author has made substantial edits pointing to potential COI issues. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't seem to have any press coverage or references? Making it non-notable. Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very niche reviews that are little better than blogs, I am afraid that's not enough. Plus, they are not even used, this is all WP:PLOT, so WP:TNT anyway.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable fictional character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Malaysia relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Could not find evidence of notable relations. Those wanting to keep should provide actual evidence of coverage LibStar (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, multiple articles covering relations between the two countries can be found in reliable sources (e.g., 1 2 3 4). FOARP (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is made up of only 4 sentences that offer no detail about this relationship... does it not make more sense to just merge? ⌚️ (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP. That's sufficient, but I think it's also worth noting that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head. Simply put, the GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable") because it makes far more sense to put encyclopedic information about Georgia-Malaysia relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Georgia and Malaysia articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM applies here. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article has almost no content. We'd better served by merging the minimal content into the respective "Foreign Relations of..." articles. Yilloslime (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the tone taken by Visviva, and particularly by FOARP, to be somewhat problematic - you can surely explain your thinking objectively without criticising the nominator? It's possible that a decent and properly sourced article could be written about this subject, which is why I'm !voting keep, but let's be clear about what the current article is - a dictionary definition, and three unsourced assertions, telling the reader in which year the two countries established diplomatic relations, and where their embassies are - it's not TNT-worthy, but it is pretty poor, I don't blame the nom for thinking it's unhelpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:47, 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.

Bangladesh–Ireland relations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 By raw !vote counts, there are 3 keeps and 3 deletes. I find the keep reasoning to be slightly more persuasive than the delete reasoning, but not enough so for me to close this as a keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

fails WP:GNG . No embassies, agreements or state visits. Relations are mainly limited to "we want to do more" rather than concrete relations. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage of plans to improve relations IS coverage of relations. This subject has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources (e.g., 1 2 3). FOARP (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that even though there is enough coverage, there is no embassies or state visits, the article serves no purpose and fails WP:GNG. Angus1986 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The logic here is somewhat confused. If there is enough coverage in reliable sources, then WP:GNG is passed. Embassies and state visits are not a requirement for an article about diplomatic relations - indeed some of the most important diplomatic relations are between parties that do not even recognize each other (e.g., Taiwan–China relations). FOARP (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search any book on the foreign relations of Bangladesh. If Ireland appears at all, it's only in a list, such as countries that make up the EU. We do our readers a disservice when we string together non-independent primary sources, routine diplomatic-speak reprinted from government press releases, and dress up the negligible result as "bilateral relations" worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deletion does not insult Bangladesh or Ireland. It doesn't mean they have no contact whatsoever, but anything worth saying about their relationship can be said in a sentence or two in Foreign relations of Bangladesh and Foreign relations of Ireland. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per FOARP. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I must once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head. The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic infomration about Bangladesh-Ireland relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Bangladesh and Ireland articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM applies here. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. I have not made an ad hominem argument of any kind. If you're interpreting my criticism of your work as a personal criticism, I wonder why you wouldn't apply the same logic to your act of stating (by posting all these boilerplate AfD noms) that multiple other editors' work is so valueless that it should be permanently removed rather than being iteratively improved through the wiki process. -- Visviva (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added: I mean, I think I understand. On the wiki, we are our work, nothing more or less. But that's one of many reasons to approach the uniquely serious matter of deletion with great care and respect for the work other editors have done, rather than in this cavalier manner. -- Visviva (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I previously had no reason to doubt the good faith of this nomination, having had (IIRC) no particular interactions with either the user or the subject area. However, further review shows that the nominator's abuse of the deletion process with regard to bilateral relations articles has been an ongoing problem for more than 10 years! In that context, it seems particularly noteworthy that this user has not sought to notify the article creators or (AFAICT) any of the relevant WikiProjects or taskforces. Such an omission might be excusable from a new editor trying to learn the ropes, but unfortunately something much less savory appears to be going on here. -- Visviva (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

another WP:ADHOM attack. Look forward to another long winded reply. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll admit that this article has better sourcing than a lot of the X-Y relations articles that end up at AfD, but I don't think there's enough to pass to the (low) bar of WP:GNG. Only a few of the sources actually directly address the actualy topic of the article--these countries' bilateral relationship--and none of them do so in any real detail. Yilloslime (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yilloslime, what about the articles covering Tasneem's meeting with the Irish president? These seem relatively detailed (i.e., they cover when relations started, what the main topics are, the status of representation etc.? FOARP (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those articles is not their depth, but their lack of independence. You've probably noticed that the Financial Express[2] is a copy of the UNB agency[3] with paragraphs rearranged and the words "reports UNB" thrown in. They aren't intellectually independent of each other. Where did UNB get their story? UNB writes "the High Commission said". The origin is more explicit in the version distributed by the government-run news agency, BSS.[4] It describes the content as, "according to a press release, issued by the UK's Bangladesh mission, received here today." None of the three is the product of original news reporting. They're republished government PR. WP:GNG calls for sources used to gauge notability to be independent; these sources are not. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - so firstly, the lack of formal diplomatic links or agreements I don't view as particularly persuasive reasoning - working on that is its own worth. The issues with in-depth sources not being independent has some more worth, but I'm inclined to lean towards there being sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 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 delete. Tone 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Katherine Storer[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- very minor historical significance if any DGG ( talk ) 11:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Her potential notability is as a planter and slaveowner. Being the only woman to be appointed as a receiver in Chancery and the only case of holding a joint appointment could possibly constitute notability. However I take planters (who inevitably owned slaves) to be the equivalent of farmers in other countries, who (other things apart) are inherently NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slave-ownership reference [5] may constitute WP:SIGCOV and the Centre has identified her as a "person of interest" briefly describing her as: "Jamaican-born widow of a prominent slave-owner; resident in Britain following the death of her husband in 1818. Accused - and acquitted - of the cruel treatment of some enslaved people whom she brought to Britain with her." [6]. Ideally, I would like to see at least one more secondary RS source. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sourcing to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom and John Pack Lambert. If someone finds more reliable sourcing to advance the historical significance please ping me. Otr500 (talk) 14:46, 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 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Yadav[edit]

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

The article was deleted earlier via AfDs. Later, it was recreated. (The article's person created the article in both times). A not notable model who never won any notable beauty pageant. Even, she did not won any major award. And she is a unsuccessful candidate in general election. And she holds some post in his party's affiliate organization's state wing. The sources are presented in the article are not enough for passing WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMODEL and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't have any major achievements to become a notable person. Her only achievement I can find is Mrs India queen which is not a notable title. Other claims like 'Mrs. Universe 2015 Asia' doesn't have any reference. As a politician also she never won anything to be mentioned. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL and WP:NPOL. The9Man | (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails criteria mentioned on WP:BIO. GargAvinash (talk) 18:36, 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 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) 01:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchana Senerat Kadigawe[edit]

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

Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Kanchana Senerat Kadigawe. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, if the high point of his military career is being mentioned in dispatches. There are also significant problems with the references.

The Island is a Sri Lankan newspaper from 2009, and would appear reliable on the face of it. However it claims the person was awarded the Military Cross and was mentioned in Winston Churchill's memoirs. Neither appear to be independently verifiable, if they aren't that would tend to disqualify it as a reliable reference.
Different article in The Island from 2009. I'm not sure whether it's a letter from a reader (due to the address at the bottom) or an article by the paper. The only apparent mention of the subject is "My grandmother’s brother, Senerath Kadigawa".
Another article in The Island from 2008, written by the family member. In this he's called "H. S. Kadigawa", not entirely sure where the "H" comes from,
Daily News is another Sri Lankan newspaper from 2002. It's written by "Sharm de Alwis", who is the family member who wrote the last two articles. It essentially repeats the claims, but leaves out the supposed Military Cross award and instead says the oak leaf is "the over-flow of the Victoria Cross for bravery" which seems dubious at best.
Asian Tribune article from 2008 (apparent reproduction on another website) says he received the Military Medal. Again, I haven't been able to verify this anywhere else.
Times of Ceylon 31 July 1944 I have no access to.
Sunday Times is another Sri Lankan newspaper from an unknown date. It repeats the Military Medal and Churchill's memoirs claims.
London Gazette says on the previous page "The KING has been graciously pleased to approve that the following be Mentioned in recognition of gallant and distinguished services in the field". I assume that's "mentioned in dispatches" or something else of that nature?
The Sunday Leader from 2008, this is definitely the reader's letters page though.
The Island again from 2008. This is a fawning opinion piece written by the same person who wrote to the Sunday Leader.

The occasional reference that isn't a fawning piece written by a friend or family member repeat the same unverifiable claims made by friends and family members, that he was awarded the Military Medal or Military Cross and that he was mentioned in Winston Churchill's memoirs. FDW777 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any particular notability. As a private doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. As a police officer, nowhere near senior enough for an article. Definitely didn't have the Military Cross, as wasn't an officer. No proof he had the Military Medal either, but if he did have he still wouldn't be notable as it's a third-level decoration. Definitely was Mentioned in Despatches, but that's less notable than an MM. The only possible claim to notability is the allegation that he was the only Asian soldier in the Parachute Regiment "at the time". But even if true I don't think that's sufficient to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 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. Tone 21:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Shelanu[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable and WP:CRYSTAL. Novice political party in a minor election (only about 50,000 people voted in total in the American elections for the 37th World Zionist Congress in 2015 [7]. Loksmythe (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sources, I can't see that GNG is met. For instance, the ynet article is an oped written by a supporter of the party and Washington Jewish Week fails original test because it's all recycled quotes without independent analysis. This is about the election and only passing coverage of the party. Talniri is the most in depth source, but IDK if it's an RS. b uidhe 04:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Zionist Movement or 38th World Zionist Congress. Not notable by itself.My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like a campaign add, not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 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. Tone 21:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmira sharifi moghadam[edit]

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

No notablility, and no good sources. Wikidata just lists this article and a Persian version of it, and yjc.com has notability issues itself. Google turns up no mainstream news coverage, only a bunch of social media links and articles written by them. Spelling and grammar errors abound. No good reason to keep. Thurm64 ^talk _{my edits} 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thurm64 ^talk _{my edits} 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Thurm64 ^talk _{my edits} 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear user, My article has a reputable source and an acknowledgment is not required to delete the article Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdii1589 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject clearly fails WP:GNG as well as specific. No coverage found. Less Unless (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Loksmythe (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, sources on the article aren't reliable. Ahmad^talk 14:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:38, 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. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Bakliwal[edit]

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

Mayor of Durg which is not considered as prominent metropolitan city. Even the sources are not able to pass the are enough for passing him WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is an elected mayor and holds a major public post, so passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. "Durg which is not considered as prominent metropolitan city" is not a valid argument and reeks of POV. Durg is a big city with 200K residents as per census 2011 [8]. There are Indian politician articles from far smaller and obscure towns and villages, not to mention many are still stubs. All the sources used are reliable, 1st one is from Rajasthan Patrika, 2nd from The Times of India, 3rd from Dainik Bhaskar - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Fylindfotberserk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per WP:POLOUTCOMES I can not agree with @Fylindfotberserk:'s word. As per WP:POLOUTCOMES X is the mayor of Y city will not make him notable.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing your words here. If I'm correct, your initial comment "Mayor of Durg which is not considered as prominent metropolitan city" meant "Bakliwal is not notable because Durg is not notable". Now you mean "Just because Bakliwal is the Mayor of Durg, doesn't make him notable". Kinda confusing whether you are considering Durg notable or not. As for the article itslef, there is always room to expand it in the future.

According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Mayors: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville".... This criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors". Now Durg is a city of "regional prominence" with 200K plus inhabitants. Point is whether a guideline like WP:POLOUTCOMES, which is more relevant to cities and town of US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc, applies to Indian cities. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I have said both. But, please take a look on AfD of Vijaya Rahatkar who was mayor of Aurangabad did not survive via AfD. Aurangabad has more population than Durg and even considered as more prominent than Durg. So, @Fylindfotberserk:'s logic doesn't satisfy that the article passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Were there only 60 votes in the election this guy ran for this office? If that is true I strongly suspect he is very non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, due to indirect election through the elected members of a Municipal Corporation. That said, I don't think just being a mayor of a small city alone qualifies WP:NPOL. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the population is 268,279. Is the mayor of the corporation the person who runs the city operations or are they a figure head. In my own area we have an article on James Fouts mayor of Warren, Michigan but not on Michael Taylor of Sterling Heights, Michigan in large part because of the difference between an administrator mayor and a figure head mayor. Fouts is controversial in other ways, he tussells with the King of Macomb County, I mean County Executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. If he was elected by "40 out of 60 votes", it means that he's elected by a city council, not the electorate. While Durg is a large city, by India standards, it's relatively small. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:Politician. Subject is just a regional leader.GargAvinash (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested by Bearian. Clearly fails SIGCOV and NPOL.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:15, 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 keep. Tone 21:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, negligible coverage outside of blogs. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to Keep. He's a Catholic bishop, albeit an irregular one. There's already one reliable source in the article and another is here[9]. It's difficult to drill down past the blog coverage, which of the "SSPX resistance" is tremendous, but I'm not convinced that it can't be done. It's complicated by the many languages involved.Jahaza (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although part of a canonically irregular group, he is a Catholic bishop. They are notable under the notability guide for bishops. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At most Weak keep -- He is not a regular Catholic bishop but only of a splinter denomination. The article indicates he was consecrated only by two bishops, in which case his consecration was canonically irregular: three is the minimum. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canonically irregular perhaps, but perfectly valid sacramentally. One consecrator is the minimum for validity, the two co-consecrators are just there for a margin of safety. (It's really effective and tends to purify the line of any chance invalidities, but it's totally overkill in normal circumstances.) Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bishops who are over actual dioceses of the Catholic Church are generally presumed notable, this guy is not over an actual diocese, he does not have leadership of a regular group and so does not fit under that rubric and otherwise the sources are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes our notability guidelines for bishops. Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 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 redirect to List of Stormwatch members. The Redirect/Delete comments are more convincing here, that the article's sources are in-universe and the Keep !votes (mostly ITSNOTABLE) don't provide any reason to contradict that suggests this does not have enough for a stand-alone article. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer (comics)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. De-PROD justification seems to be in ignorance on how notability works on Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to see why this article fails notability were hundreds of other comics characters articles don't. It does need to be improved upon, but deletion is too drastic. Flordeneu (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to satisfy WP:N with WP:SECONDARY sources detailing real world information and not filled with only WP:PLOT. This article is entirely primary, and available sources are trivial mentions in relation to the comic franchise. Other character articles are irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TTN (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that means it needs improving, not deleting. Flordeneu (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The means of improvement need to be shown to exist. Simply claiming it needs to be improved in fact shows the opposite. TTN (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't start it yourself instead of being so eager to get rid of it? Flordeneu (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brief search turns up a variety of sources that help establish notability. A few examples: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. — Hunter Kahn 16:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to understand how someone who seems to build good articles in general has such low standards when it comes to AfD. Did you even look at any of them before you posted them? TTN (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first source is of some use. Seriously, this is not an impressive argument - are we supposed to be intimidated by the number of elinks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG with all coverage being WP:TRIVIAL. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS certainly does not apply when talking about the massive amount of comic book cruft written when inclusion standards were about the same as FANDOM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stormwatch members, which has a minimum of information on the character, or Stormwatch (comics), which has more in-universe information and is probably what users searching for the term want. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either List of Stormwatch members or Stormwatch (comics). The sources presented above are either trivial name-drops, plot summaries, or trivial name-drops in plot summaries. There is no actual analysis or discussion of the character that would really allow the article to be anything but all plot. But, as reasonable targets exist, a Redirect would work well here. Rorshacma (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First considered a redirect, but seems in-depth and notable on its own as an article. Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think Hunter Kahn's links collectively have enough to demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. WP:INTERVIEW with the creator is the best new source found - and then it gets worse, mentions in passing in reviews of parent or related comic book series, etc. Not enough to warrant a stand alone article IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stormwatch members or Stormwatch (comics) per Piotrus and others. Supporters of Keep have not been able to find WP:THREE substantive sources on the character itself. No amount of interviews or passing mentions can create notability without substantial coverage. b uidhe 23:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree that it should be redirected to List of Stormwatch members than having a standalone article on this. Covergaes are WP:TRIVIAL. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:19, 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 delete. Rough consensus that the individual isn't notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan R. Cheema[edit]

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

No significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Started by SPA [[User talk:Drfaizan ]]. Störm (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is one of the many radio/TV hosts out there. Not a notable person to have his own Wikipedia page. Things written are not supported by any references. The BBC reference provided is also a WP:FICTREF. The9Man | (talk) 09:13, 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. Tone 21:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fran de Takats[edit]

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

Non-notable. Claims to be "an A&R executive, music manager, and talent scout for several major and independent record labels" but the citation is a dead link. Also claims to be "responsible for many hit records and notably two Brit Awards", but one citation here is a dead link and the other makes no mention. At best, notability by association, which is not allowed. Page creator has no other credits in Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current references are useless (the accessmylibrary ones appear dead and the other never mentions him), and my searches aren't turning up anything other than social media, directory listings, passing mentions etc. which don't help prove notability. Neiltonks (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims don't support with reliable references. Google also returns with few blogs and spam websites. I can't see any major coverage or achievements from him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The9Man | (talk) 09:06, 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 redirect to Wasted in Jackson. Tone 21:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Drinking[edit]

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

Non-notable song/single. As the article itself says, "The single failed to chart." Emeraude (talk) 13:08, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable song per WP:NSONG. No reason for a stand-alone article about it to exist. Neiltonks (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wasted in Jackson, the song's album. Most songs are not notable, and this one is not an exception. Hog Farm (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. Page view stats show 12 views since it's creation in 2010. I think there's no need for a redirect.Less Unless (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wasted in Jackson as it does not appear to have enough third-party, reliable coverage to support an independent article, but it is a valid search term and a redirect would be helpful for anyone looking for information about this particular song. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wasted in Jackson. It's a valid search term and redirects are cheap. Rlendog (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wasted in Jackson. Would be most useful as a redirect. Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:23, 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. Tone 21:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamoghna Ghosh[edit]

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

The article uses routine coverages. These are not enough for passing WP:GNG. And being the general secretary of party's affiliate organization is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL lack of election victory or major public position held. student leaders are not automatically notable. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is/was not holding any notable position. Not an elected to meet WP:NPOL. The9Man | (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. Fails WP:NPOL. GargAvinash (talk) 18:43, 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. Tone 21:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shankudeb Panda[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Being the president of party's affiliate organization is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. Becoming a core committee member of party's affiliate organization's state wing is not enough also. He directed only one film. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT and WP:ORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NPOL as he never won any major election nor occupied any major public office. Party posts occupied by him are not notable. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 08:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as Panda has only held non-notable party positions and not public offices as required. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:07, 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. KaisaL (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Rudra[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG. And being the president of party's affiliate organization is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NPOL as he never won any major election nor occupied any major public office. Party posts occupied by him are not notable. --⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 08:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:GNG. Non-notable party politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No major achievements to meet general notability. Never hold any significan position to pass WP:NPOL. The9Man | (talk) 09:22, 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. Tone 21:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Ein Hund Namens Money[edit]

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

One review is cited for this book, but I can’t find any others and it does not seem that this work passes WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found any reliable sources except for the one in the refs. Also checked German sources - same. The writer is notable, this could be a merger, but there's no article on him in En Wiki.Less Unless (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBOOK and WP:MILL. "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent...." is lakcing. Totally non-notable kids book, one of thousands published annually. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a two-line mention in this review of all of the author's books about making money. I don't think that's quite enough. In any case, should this survive AfD, move to a more appropriate title, for example its German title "Ein Hund namens Money". —Kusma (t·c) 14:53, 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VESC[edit]

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

I can't find much about this technology at all. Google turns up mostly sales pages. Nothing in Gbooks Some Hackday stuff in Gnews. PROD declined by article author. Fails WP:GNG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This the technology that is used in almost all high-powered applications including skateboards. It is the only viable open source ESC. If you cannot find something on it yourself does not mean that it does not exist. Also the technology being sold as a product on some websites does not discount the fact it is novel and important. In addition to all this, I spent a lot of time gathering resources about the topic and every point in the article is referenced.--M. Hassan talk here 15:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohamedhp: The sources you used in the article for referencing are consisting of deadlinks, self-published and user-generated contents. Can you please add references from independent reliable sources? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, hard work and verified existence are not indicators of notability. "Notability" in these discussions means something a bit different than it does in normal English usage. The general notability guideline is that there should be evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for an article subject to be considered notable. The sources presented in the article do not demonstrate those qualities. All of the sources cannot be considered independent as they are from people and organizations either developing or selling these controllers. These sources do not demonstrate that this technology has made any impact beyond a small circle of enthusiasts. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 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. Tone 21:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cargo airlines of Bangladesh[edit]

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

The page doesn't have any source. Same can be found List of airlines of Bangladesh#Cargo Airlines. So, its better delete the page and leave a redirect. Sony R (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sony R (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless duplication of material already contained in List of airlines of Bangladesh. Doesn't add anything new and there are only four entries so the length of the list isn't an issue. Neiltonks (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of airlines of Bangladesh. Unnecessary article and there are no other List of cargo airlines of .. articles to give this type of list article any precedent. Ajf773 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I would usually include "redirect per WP:CHEAP" on situations like this, it has come to my attention that there is no other "List of cargo airlines of [country]." The article is an inferior duplicate to the regular airline list. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or "merge") is outcome supported by statements here so far. Outright deletion would just to be mean, perhaps, or to run up someone's deletion score? And allow restoration later if more info is developed, without basically violating Wikipedia's principles towards giving credit, preserving attribution, etc. Consider some of reasoning in fine essay wp:TNTTNT. --Doncram (talk) 18:07, 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. Consensus that the sourcing in existence either isn't reliable or in-depth enough to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little chef Kicha[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Subject has appeared on TV a few times and has allegedly received some (non-cited, non-significant) 'awards'; i.e. aboslutely nil WP:NOTABLE achievements. Existing citations are from non-reliable web chat and 'news' sites including Mashable, Huffpost, digitalspy, etc.. So delete. -- Smerus (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little indication of notability. Dorama285 17:40, 19 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) 07:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm skeptical of the argument that HuffPo isn't a reliable source to help establish notability. Regardless, a Google news search shows a number of other sources, including Times of India ([27], [28], [29]), NDTV ([30], [31]), and The Times ([32]). —Ost (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ost, see WP:HUFFPO. The Times snippet is just borrowed to make up a compilation article. The other stuff (Times of India and NDTV) is mainly about him being on the Ellen Generes show, not in itself sufficient to make him WP:NOTABLE.Smerus (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need really good indepth sourcing to justify having an article on a ten year old, we do not have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There is no general consensus for the reliability of Huffington Post, and Digital Spy is considered reliable. I also found these two articles, from The Times and The Times of India; thus, I believe there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV:

→https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-hottest-young-chefs-in-the-world-txddb528m

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/little-chef-kicha-when-i-said-i-wanted-to-touch-his-shiny-head-steve-harvey-burst-out-laughing/articleshow/64176212.cms

Dflaw4 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Passing mentions are not enough to establish notability. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:28, 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 delete. Consensus tour doesn't show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Up the Quiet World Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as having only one reference for three years. Aspects (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:NTOUR, the inclusion criterion that a concert tour has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article is not just the ability to offer technical verification that the tour happened, but the ability to show and reliably source "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". My go-to example of the distinction is always The Tragically Hip: of the literally dozens of concert tours they undertook in their 30-year career, just two actually have Wikipedia articles: the multi-artist festival bill they staged three times in the 1990s, and the farewell tour. That is, the two that can contextualize and source some genuine significance above and beyond just saying that the tour happened and listing the venues. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 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. Sandstein 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahman Azhari[edit]

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

There are 95 sources in the article. These made the article WP:REFBOMB. The article is full of references from unreliable sources, youtube link of his waz (religious lecture) and very few routine coverage from reliable sources. The article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I totally agree. Having searched the net for references in the languages I know, I am entirely convinced that he fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GorgeCustersSabre (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more reliable sources are provided by the contributing editor. There is no doubt Mr. Azhari is popular, but where are the reliable sources? A search of Google sources gave results only to promotional materials and no mainstream publication that we know of. Furthermore our Wikipedia article reads like a promotional piece to marketing for his materials and provide access to specific YouTube lectures. What if there are say another 2-300 more lectures after he returns in March 2020 from Malaysia. So now we connect even to more YouTube videos? I mean where does this stop? Ideally there should be just one link to the YouTube global channel page. The rest is just advertisement and needs removal. I am ok to keeping the article conditionally but after providing reliable sources and trimming the article after removing all YouTube links. werldwayd (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the main interest of such a page is with the Bengali readership. If we go to the Berngali page of Mizanur Rahman Azhari, where they should get best and most comprehensive information, as all the output of Mizanur Rahman Azhari is in Bengali and some Arabic, the Bengali version is restrained and acceptable and translates as: "Mizanur Rahman Azhari is one of the notable speakers, scholars and preachers from Bangladesh." After some references, it goes on to say: "Early life and education: Azhari was born on January 26, 1990 in Demra, Dhaka, Bangladesh." End of article... Now that type of approach in English Wikipedia would have passed, though with some difficulty, but still I believe it would have passed. What's not acceptable is a listing of all Mr. Azhari's sermons filmed for YouTube, with links to each and every one of them. That is plain promotion and advertisement. werldwayd (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Werldwayd Thanks for your comment. In Bangla Wikipedia the page is protected now. And yes, for me it also seems to me that the article is a promotional article.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:36, 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. Sandstein 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Lewis[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show contestant. Sources presented do not reach WP:GNG. Doesn't meet WP:NENT either. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable reality show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 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. Sandstein 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varo Money[edit]

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

Non notable company sourced entirely to press releases and funding announcements. Fails NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable. Tech start up should have much better sources to qualify under NCORP. Renata (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, non-notable. Previously deleted for a reason. Dorama285 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable as multiple press citations come from big publications. Could be improved; cut some citations. Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:09, 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. Sandstein 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edin Pjanić[edit]

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

Non-notable criminal, and quite possibly a hoax. There is one book given as a source which is not available online. Aside from that, I can find no evidence for the existence of this person. Whpq (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax, I can't find any news source looking for either name. Reverse image search of photo turns up nothing. I would have expected something from a serial killer case from the mid-2000s. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it's probably a hoax. The cited book does exist and is cited in other Wikipedia articles but I'm unable to get into it online. Even if it's not a hoax, accessible citations are needed for verifiability. There is an Edin Pjanić who is a footballer who is well-covered in the media, but this isn't him. Emeraude (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. I already tried to find anything, but there is nothing to be found. Mhare (talk) 09:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant WP:BLP violation, unable to verify. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 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. Sandstein 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Church Fathers and abortion[edit]

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

This article, created on 24 February 2020 by User:Oct13, is a POVFORK of the article Catholic Church and abortion. On 23 February I reverted a section titled "Church Fathers on abortion" that Oct13 had added to Catholic Church and abortion. I explained my reasons on the article's talk page: The main source (StayCatholic.com) for the added section "Church Fathers on abortion" is an advocacy and not a scholarly source. The sequence of cherry-picked quotations are taken out of context. For example, several historians have written that the use of the term abortion in earlier times was different from current use, and corresponds to what we would call a late (or 2nd/3rd-trimester) abortion. That is, before the 19th century most Catholic authors did not regard termination of pregnancy before "quickening" or "ensoulment" as an abortion.^[1]^[2]^[3] Oct13 did not respond to my reasons for reverting, but rather created a new article, expanding the problematic content.

References

^ Joan Cadden, "Western medicine and natural philosophy," in Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, Garland, 1996, pp. 51–80.
^ Cyril C. Means, Jr., "A historian's view," in Robert E. Hall, ed., Abortion in a Changing World, vol. 1, Columbia University Press, 1970, pp. 16–24.
^ John M. Riddle, "Contraception and early abortion in the Middle Ages," in Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, Garland, 1996, pp. 261–77.

Twice before in recent weeks -- on 17 January [33] and on 12 February [34] -- I had reverted edits by Oct13 because they presented Church views in wikivoice (e.g. infallibility of the Pope) and/or inaccurately represented the sources. NightHeron (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 07:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This whole page is a great big ball of WP:POV — it’s a essay that on its face seems designed to advocate a position about abortion. It might be interesting to some if put on a blog; it doesn’t make sense in an encyclopedia.TheOther Bob 03:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and TheOtherBob. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think the topic could be developed into a decent article, the current page relies on primary sources and lacks notability. Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not neutral POV, fork of main article. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very clearly a POVFORK. — Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10 (as duplicate of existing mainspace article) and obvious POVFORK. b uidhe 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a proper article at all, just a collection of anti-abortion quotes from the first to third centuries. An acceptable article possibly could be written on the topic, but this isn't it and never will be. Neiltonks (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, as above. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of Christian thought on abortion; although obviously not all of the content is suitable for merging, some of it seemed to fit okay during my recent attempt.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, clearly POVFORK. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 02:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep but Rename to Views of Early Church Fathers on abortion and make this a main article to History of Christian thought on abortion#Patristic writings. The study of the views of the Early Church Fathers is a significant source for Catholic and Orthodox theology. It also falls within the scope of Protestant theology. The present article is far from ideal, but that is a matter of editing it to remove some waffle in the lead section. Inevitably theological views in all of the churches have moved on, but the views of the Early Fathers remain a legitimate area of study. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK; it is a well-meaning essay, but still, we are not a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 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. Tone 21:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–Brazil relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG. This is trying to make notable relations about a relation with a tiny Asian country. no embassies or agreements. The common memberships prove nothing about actual relations. the level of trade is very low, even the article admits "In 2011, Bhutan ranked 236th among Brazil's trade partners, having a 0,00% participation in Brazilian foreign trade". The fact that you have to pass through a third country to fly to Bhutan adds zero to relations. The claim that Brazil is interested in Bhutan's happiness index seems more like the opinion of one person and not the Government LibStar (talk) 00:02, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:07, 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. Consensus that while there are interviews and details from Katchen, there are insufficient sources about him (as opposed to his company) in order to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Katchen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, not referenced to sufficient reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG. As always, every CEO of a company is not automatically notable enough for a standalone BLP just because the company has one -- the key to whether he gets a standalone biographical article, or just has his name mentioned in the company's article without linking to a separate biography of him, hinges on the degree to which he is or isn't the subject of reliable source coverage about him.
But four of the seven references here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (a self-published essay about himself written in the first person on his company's own website, the alumni association of his own alma mater, and a speaker's profile on the corporate website of a speaker's bureau he's directly affiliated with) -- and of the three sources that are actually from real media outlets, two of them are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself or other things in the first person. But while Q&A interviews can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts in an article that has already cleared GNG on stronger sources, they cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves -- a person does not get over GNG by being the author or speaker of content about other things, he gets over GNG by being the subject of content written by other people.
So there's only one source here that actually meets all of the necessary conditions (i.e. written in the third person by a journalist for a real media outlet), and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nominator. A WP:BEFORE, found the same types of sources, not WP:IS or not WP:RS either as the speaker/interviews. Fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search shows numerous RS: CNBC Financial Post Globe and Mail Bloomberg Forbes Toronto Life.

Also the Nom's claim " But while Q&A interviews can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts in an article that has already cleared GNG on stronger sources, they cannot bring the GNG in and of themselves -- a person does not get over GNG by being the author or speaker of content about other things, he gets over GNG by being the subject of content written by other people" is not in any policy I can find. These articles count for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affied (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Interviews are generally considered primary sources (see WP:NOR#defs, bullet point C), and it's pretty general convention that assertions of notability require secondary sources to confirm. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the relevance and quality of the sources provided would help us determine a consensus about exactly whether he does pass the notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 00:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another no-N WP:RESUME article; all the attempted Keep sources are anything anyone who has a financial degree can be called on to say to meet some publication's certain POV. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- I think the article has enough notable coverage to has a stand alone wikipedia profile. Indeed the article needs a lot of improvement we need more secondary sources and for this reason I have added two new sources but I don't think deletion of this article a solution. ABCDE22 (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (Bearcat) and CASSIOPEIA. All sources in the article are either non-qualifying non-reliable sources or non-independent sources that are independent of the subject. Any mentions to Michael Katchen are to him in his role as CEO of Wealthsimple, not to and about him as a person. Thus, he's only mentioned in a tangential way and, in turn, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:NBIO. Doug Mehus T·C 16:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator explained in detail. I agree with him. - The9Man | (talk) 10:24, 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 keep. Weak arguments all around, but 4meter4 sums it up nicely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kompong Speu[edit]

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

Having just extensively expanded Cambodian Campaign there is just very little information available about this minor battle and certainly not enough to justify it having its own page Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MILNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BonkHindrance There are no RS on this battle that meet GNG Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a very minor engagement in a very long war. Will trust Mztourist on lack of sourcing. Funny, this was translated to 3 other Wikipedia languages. Renata (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough casualties involved. Deserves stand-alone article. NavjotSR (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NavjotSR there are no RS for this battle, if I can find any more details I will create a new page, but I can't find anything at the moment and there is just no reason to keep a 2 sentence standalone page. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - See this source. Many articles on here are very small and there is no need for expansion unless the subject is a fork of another or really lacks any mention, but for battles such as this we are allowed to have separate articles. NavjotSR (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't justify a standalone page but you are welcome to expand it as you think it should stay. Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with an article being a stub. A search on google books revealed several publications that cover the battle, including those already listed in the article. It meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at what the books actually say, there's no detail there. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tradition and Custom Museum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. I could not find any significant coverage for its English name and 2 Malay names. The best "source" from a previous AfD was Lonely Planet, a travel guide. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete much as I hate to say it. I can't find any coverage beyond its existence. StarM 03:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:33, 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 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toothbrush sanitizer[edit]

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

No need for a separate article. It can be easily covered on toothbrush article. Fails notability guidelines. Störm (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Google Scholar and Google Books show how the design of these products have changed as well as studies done about their efficacy. --BonkHindrance (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick WP:BEFORE search brings up several sources that can be used to expand the article. Many of them explain patents and the technology. There is even a NYT Article on it. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I found the following sources:
- "Start-up readies a killer device for toothbrushes" by George Lazarus, Chicago Tribune (Jan 19, 2000)
- "Zapping That Icky Toothbrush" by Brendan I. Koerner, The New York Times (Jan 16, 2005)
- "Man vs. toothbrush: Should we be afraid?" by Karen Klages, Chicago Tribune (Feb 27, 2005)
- "Housewares industry looks to arm against domestic threats" by Jura Koncius, The Washington Post (April 8, 2006)
- "Health Products Exposed" by Dena Braun, Reno Gazette-Journal (Aug 4, 2007)
- America Brushes Up: The Use and Marketing of Toothpaste and Toothbrushes in the Twentieth Century by Kerry Segrave, McFarland & Company (2010)

I added these to the article in a Further reading section, so that people who want to improve the article will have some sources that they can use. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article could be improved with the above mentioned sources. Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:17, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Nusca[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Loksmythe (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. As presented this is a pseudo biography and not much more than a resume. The source titled "About - Andrew J. Nusca" is self-published (not acceptable as a source) and might even be self-promotion. The link to "Drum Magazine" returns "PAGE NOT FOUND... OOPS! PAGE NOT FOUND. PLEASE TRY USING THE SEARCH BOX BELOW.". All-in-all the article seems to be irreparable unless totally rewritten from a neutal point of view with more biographical content. Otr500 (talk) 10:46, 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.

[1] Joan Cadden, "Western medicine and natural philosophy," in Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, Garland, 1996, pp. 51–80.

[2] Cyril C. Means, Jr., "A historian's view," in Robert E. Hall, ed., Abortion in a Changing World, vol. 1, Columbia University Press, 1970, pp. 16–24.

[3] John M. Riddle, "Contraception and early abortion in the Middle Ages," in Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, Garland, 1996, pp. 261–77.

[1]

[2]

[3]