Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 February	27 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 merge to History of the Jews in Vancouver#List of local Jewish schools. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Hebrew Academy[edit]

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

Not notable. Should be redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure of the target. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Jewish education should probably be the target but there isn't anything to add from this article. An article related to Jewish education in Canada could potentially be more appropriate as there is enough source for that, should pass WP:GNG relatively comfortably. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of WP:NSCHOOL says ...middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. Since this is left to interpretation, I would argue that the Courier reference satisfies WP:GNG (namely having significant, reliable and independent coverage), since discussion there about the Shannon Park Annex /Vancouver Hebrew School is more than trivial but less than the main focus. Since NSCHOOL leaves its requirements up to interpretation, my take on it is that we needn't require the full-blown WP:ORG requirements, which were written (it seems to me) to enforce WP:COI and WP:PROMOTIONAL tone in organizations, because there is no semblance of any of that in the article itself nor in the references, it being only a bare bones school article/stub. This also removes the thorny issue of where to redirect. StonyBrook (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look at Google News finds plenty of good sources. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Change !vote to Delete. I spent some time digging up sources and cannot even find the history of the school, much less articles dedicated to it. The only thing that comes up is that it's the only Orthodox Jewish day school in Vancouver. It's listed in History of the Jews in Vancouver; that's enough. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOL. --BonkHindrance (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE and WP:AUD. School has received more than strictly local coverage. StonyBrook (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to locality. Not a terminal school, it only goes to 10th grade. We're not supposed to say WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES any more (I guess?), but WP:MILL applies. John from Idegon (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of bare-bones arguments here. Some more in-depth analysis of sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article ~~Vancouver School Board~~ History of the Jews in Vancouver. StonyBrook, my primary concern is that the article if left will just be a WP:PERMASTUB. The Vancouver Courier article is only mentioning it in the context of a motion in the Vancouver School Board. I'd call it sheer luck the school got a mention in the way it did there. Other than that, it has some coverage due to it hosting Ben Shapiro once but there doesn't seem to be much that can be derived about the school from that. Though, I would say that with the information that is present in the article currently, it can be merged. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are correct that it is a "Permastub", what is your point? The essay doesn't have an issue with them unless they are "problematic", but what is problematic or unsatisfying about a currently operating day school? I don't see the justification for a merge with Vancouver School Board either since the two entities do not seem to share any affiliation, except for the leasing agreement for the annex space. StonyBrook (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would revert any mention of a private school from a school district article on sight. There is 0 relationship between the two entities. School districts sell or lease out of use facilities to private school operators all the time (what else do you do with a used school). Target for redirect is completely unacceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StonyBrook The school just isn't notable. It very clearly does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The point of the permastub is that, it has near no significant coverage on its own merits. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Raymie, Tayi Arajakate, John from Idegon, whatever the outcome here, I think the most appropriate merge target for this article should be History of the Jews in Vancouver#List of local Jewish schools, per what Yoninah has found. StonyBrook (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement. Raymie (t • c) 01:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Me, too. John from Idegon (talk) 01:05, 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 Nomination withdrawn for Afshin Moghaddam and Delete the remaining three. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afshin Moghaddam[edit]

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

These do not seem to exist. No non-Wikipedia results in English, and machine-translation of the few Persian sources in the articles does not corroborate any of the information supposedly contained therein. None of the Persian-language sources even mentions "Afshin Moghaddam" nor the alleged Persian translation of his name at any point. If deleted, add to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia as this has been around since 2014. While Afshin Moghaddam does seem to exist, the Parviz_Maghsadi_band and the two songs listed underneath do not seem to actually exist, per @Crossroads:' analysis that all three are the work of a serial hoaxer who's been banned from both English and Farsi Wikipedias. The sources cited, upon machine translation, do not even mention the supposed content and are patently hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous Iranian singer, mostly known for his hit single called "Zemestoon". Has significant coverage in Persian: [1] [2]. Hanooz (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The age of the subject might be an issue with trying to find online sources. The two provided do not appear to be RSes. If there are additional sources, please ping me with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Hanooz. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the latter three; undecided as yet on the first. Hanooz, فرهنگ2016, and others, note that there are four articles bundled in this AfD. The latter three articles were all created by and are essentially the sole work of Amirhosein Izadi, a WP:SNEAKY cross-wiki hoaxer who also dabbled in sockpuppetry and has been indefinitely blocked in the Farsi and English Wikipedias. Read all about it in this ANI thread. Those latter three articles are thus completely untrustworthy. The first article, Afshin Moghaddam, is a different situation, as Amirhosein Izadi has had relatively little involvement in it. I have removed his additions which promoted his created articles which are likely hoaxes. I am neutral on the existence of the Afshin Moghaddam article for now since I haven't investigated if he meets WP:GNG. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep singer apart from Winter (Afshin Moghadam song) which has no article, can't see evidence for songs. 17:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken Afshin Moghaddam off this AFD, but my rationale stands for the other three after @Crossroads:' evidence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the remaining three as failing WP:V as likely hoaxes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve , he meets notability as he has significant coverage in his homeland as well as neighboring countries. Alex-h (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is no longer about Afshin Moghaddam but rather about the three related articles which appear to be hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orbe (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND with no major label or coverage in any major press. The one source that seems to have covered them appears to be more of a paparazzi site than a WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I could not find any secondary sources on the subject that were reliable enough for Wikipedia's standards. With that being said, the subject also fails WP:BAND. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:43, 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. I'll leave it to post-AFD to decide if there's a good redirect to be created here. KaisaL (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Private healthcare[edit]

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

Unreferenced and unfocussed essay Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – The subject is notable although the article itself needs to be rewritten, but this could also be a redirect to some section on Health system with {{r with possibilities}}. The economics of privatization and private health care as a way to expand health care in developing countries are widely discussed [3][4][5][6][7]. There is nothing in the current article that would be salvageable when someone does finally rewrite it. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is certainly notable. But I think it would be better dealt with on a country by country basis, and to some extent it already is. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm withdrawing my !vote as although sources about the subject exist, none give a good overview of the subject and I was not able to find a way to salvage this article. I can't find any good redirect targets for this, so a soft delete might be an option. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTESSAY // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the topic of private healthcare is plenty notable (there are whole books written on the subject of public vs private healthcare), but the article itself is written as an essay, is unsourced, and doesn't seem worth saving. It is worth noting that there is an article on Public healthcare. But this article looks nothing like that, and I assume WP:BLOWITUP makes the most sense in this case. Whisperjanes (talk) 04:54, 5 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markovia[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. The sources added de-prod are absolute trash (in relation to their coverage of this specific topic) that nobody in good faith could argue add anything substantial to the article. They either fail to talk about the topic in detail or only simply mention it within the context of the fictional world with no real world context whatsoever. TTN (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NEXIST. Markovia has played a role in both the Arrowverse shows and a DC animated series, and when comic book stuff shows up in movies and TV shows, there's coverage in the film/pop culture press. Viewers look for background information on the adaptations, so this article has value for our readers. These are the sources I've found:
- "Black Lightning's Metahuman World Just Got Bigger in the Most Unexpected Way" by Charles Pulliam-Moore, iO9 (Jan 31, 2019)
- "Black Lightning Drops a Reference to a Major DC Location" by Russ Burlingame, Comic book.com (Nov 20, 2018)
- Markovia's Future in the DC Universe From Doomsday Clock – The Outsiders by Rich Johnston, Bleeding Cool (May 31, 2018)
- A Guide to the Fictional Cities of the DC Universe by Graeme McMillan, The Hollywood Reporter (Feb 18, 2016)want

WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the notability, just the existence of reliable sources. I've added these to the article in a Further reading section so that people who want to improve the article can use them. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even look at the sources you post? The fourth article is a literal single sentence with no context. I can totally respect a proper back and forth on the validity of sources, but that is an absolute joke. TTN (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comic fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. The sources above don't go beyond WP:PLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources presented above are just in-universe plot summaries. Even the ones about the live action series are basically just "Markovia was mentioned in this episode - here is the fictional history of the country". Searching for additional sources also just turns up plot and/or trivial mentions. It could maybe be turned into a redirect to Geo-Force, one of the characters that are most associated with the location, but I'm not completely sure that would be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article does not pass GNG, and the sources provided do not help pass it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 5 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. KaisaL (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Horsley[edit]

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

A BLP-violating train wreck of an article, tagged as problematic for nine years and full of unsourced and borderline libellous content. A search for sources only seems to bring back tabloids, which isn't an acceptable solution. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomimation, have also looked to rescue/improve the sources with nothing reliable easy to find Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. There is severe notability issues. A search returned things like "Jones Wife: Who is Georgia Jones and what does she do", "Who is Danny Jones wife Georgia Horsley? Former Miss ..." and other links involving Danny Jones. A problem is that notability is not inherited. She won Miss England 2007 that lands in the middle of WP:BLP1E. It might be argued that she competed in the Miss World 2007 pageant, but placing 18th is two shy of of the listed top 16 for any notability. The sources on the article are equivalent to what can be found on a search. Although acceptable for content they do not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much passing mention sourcing. We have decided that beauty queens are not default notable, we just have yet to see people apply this ruling against older articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. There's a major BLP violation, too. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 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 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George G. Bloomer[edit]

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

Tagged for notability issues for almost two years with no improvement. And that's probably because there isn't really an article here. Nearly all Ghits relate to a dispute with his former employer that only mentions him in passing. Original article contained copyvios of claimed sources--this barely escaped being blanked by the skin of its teeth. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he's a fairly well-known black pastor.[8][9][10][11][12]This one is about the Word network controversy, but calls him "one of [the network's] most notable pastors"[13][14][15]Jahaza (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources shown above such as Chicago Tribune, Christian Post, News Observer, Gainesville Times and others, therefore he passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 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 speedy delete as a self-confessed duplicate article. Hut 8.5 22:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ORA R1 (duplicate article)[edit]

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

This article is a redundant Wikipedia article describing the exact same motor vehicle as the article ORA R1. Wikipedia clearly does not need two (unevenly sourced) articles on the same car, with nearly identical prose. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A10. Hog Farm (talk) 03:02, 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 21:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Singh[edit]

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

He is a district level politician. He was never elected as an MLA or MP. The article fails WP:NPOL. And the article clearly fails WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Singh is a local municipal politician who hasn't served as an MLA or MP as required by WP:POLITICIAN. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he hasn't been elected as MP . he does not pass WP:NPOL, Alex-h (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES - local politicians are rarely notable. Also, there's a WP:NOTINHERITED problem staring right at us. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus one way or the other regarding the notability of this company, and therefore no consensus to delete the article. However, just because the article won't be deleted doesn't mean that there aren't paths available to challenge and remove content from the article that cannot be backed up by reliable sources. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 00:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NowMedical[edit]

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

A possible un-notable company with only local sources and blog articles as support of WP:GNG, with factual accuracy which is disputed.
(I myself does not have an opinion, only relaying from OTRS ticket:2020021010006728.) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation of what factual accuracy is disputed. There are seven independent references and there are more out there. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the OTRS ticket, so I'm not sure what the complaint is about, but if I were Dr. Keen, or in any way affiliated with NowMedical, I'd like to have it removed. It's not exactly flattering. The sources aren't great, but I don't think they're libelous or defamatory, which would be a reason to (immediately) delete it. Looking at the sources; bracknellnews.co.uk has A "Send us your news" feature, https://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/send-us-your-news/ BUT claims to adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. Their article was written by Ollie Sirrell, who works for newsquest.co.uk, which says about itself "We employ experienced marketing consultants throughout the UK that help local businesses promote their products and services to local audiences." If the subject was another cryptocurrency company, I'd be pretty quick to dismiss that as an unreliable source. OpenDemocracy's article was written by Clare Sambrook, a novelist & investigative journalist. The article for thebureauinvestigaes was written by Maeve McClenaghan, who appears to be a reliable investigative journalist. The Islington Gazette looks like an independent, relibale source to me. The author, Lucas Cumiskey has an email address at archant.co.uk, which is dodgy; "we help businesses enter and succeed in their chosen markets through marketing services". Again, if this was an article about some startup, I would not trust that source. nicholasnicol.uk is clearly a blog. So is nearlylegal.co.uk. The Hackney Citizen's article was written by Ed Sheridan who is bylinead as the Local Democracy Reporter for the Islington citizen and the Camden citizen as well. I'm not super-impressed by the sources, but I see no reason to dismiss them as factually inaccurate. The article in the independent is clearly significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. Vexations (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not wonderful, but there is no obvious conflict of interest, and the real source of most of them is The Bureau of Investigative Journalism which is reasonably respectable, but the local papers are following up the implications of their story. But I've now found a much fuller report in the Independent. Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Request As I can see the OTRS ticket I'm going to ask that this be relisted. The letter to OTRS provides specific claims as to why available sources do not establish notability which are loosely of the kind of analysis which is typical at an AfD discussion. This analysis cannot be posted here without permission so I am going to ask for that permission. If granted it would allow a chance for uninvolved editors to discuss whether they do or don't meet our qualifications. If not granted then consensus above hasn't really changed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I too have reviewed the OTRS ticket, and see decent cause to relist at this time. I would like to see extra involvement from people not directly involved in writing the article, and also think this will allow time for a response permitting some details from the ticket to be shared here. I do suggest future participants of this discussion comment on the notability of this company, and whether the current angle of the article is adhering enough to WP:DUE (especially with consideration that living people are discussed in the article).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following was sent in by the lawyers representing NowMedical. It arrived on February 28th but was only routed to me a short time ago.

Notability
NowMedical is a small, private business with six employees. It provides non-binding medical opinions to assist local authorities and the UKBA in making decisions on social housing and an individual's ability to leave the UK respectively. Pursuant to Wikipedia’s Policy, NowMedical is “a very small”, “local” company and is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own page.
Inaccuracies/Defamatorv Allegations
No “ﬁt to ﬂy” language is used in NowMedical reports. These are directed only at the statutory test ofwhether an individual is “unable to leave the UK”.
NowMedical’s doctors are not required, by law or their regulators, to physically examine a patient to provide the opinions sought. NowMedical does not diagnose, or challenge diagnoses of, patients. It provides opinions based on medical records provided, as to whether that patient’s medical condition meets the relevant statutory test. A physical examination would add nothing to this opinion. This approach is corroborated by the English courts and General Medical Council.
NowMedical advised Haringey council that the child was in “medical need” and moving to ground floor accommodation was optimal. As such accommodation in London is scarce, NowMedical suggested that a different ﬁrst ﬂoor ﬂat may be a suitable alternative and enable a quicker move.
Sources
The Islington Tribune, Hackney Citizen, Islington Gazette and Bracknell News are “media of limited interest and circulation” and should not be relied on when assessing notability.
The Independent, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Open Democracy articles each contain defamatory allegations and substantial inaccuracies. All are the subject of legal complaints. They do not satisfy Wikipedia’s reliability criterion.
Nearly Legal is a self-published blog written by a housing law ﬁrm partner. As a practitioner in housing law he holds a vested interest in discrediting NowMedical and stands to ﬁnancially beneﬁt from legal challenges to local authority decisions. He is not an independent contributor.
Nicolas Nicol’s blog is self-published. He is not “unrelated with no vested interest in the company”. As a barrister, he acts against local authorities who have made
decisions involving NowMedical opinions and is incentivised to contribute to the misleading narratives in the local media.

I post this without comment or opinion merely for consideration by other editors as part of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not show that the company is not notable, rather the reverse. These issues should be addressed in the article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the contrary, the OTRS ticket does not substantiate that there is any notable controversy. It does substantiate that there is a possible serious BLP issue and which should not be ignored. The only source that substantiates that this issue has created significant coverage in RS is the Independent, which fails to substantiate that there is any wrongdoing involved. Other sources are local smalltime press and a lobbying group. The article as written paints the BLP subject's actions in a negative light and that requires better coverage than currently exists. If the controversy later generates further significant coverage in RS than it can be re-created but BLP requires removal of most of the information. The amount of BLP-compliant information remaining is not worth having an article for and does not comply with GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a company, not a person. The question is not how good the article is. The question is whether the company has coverage. Coverage in local press is relevant because the coverage is of contracts the company has with individual local councils. Rathfelder (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:: WP:BLP ...applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia including articles about organizations. "The article is about a company" is not a loophole for BLP-violating information or attack pages. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies everywhere. However, because this is about a company and not a person, can there be a policy compliant version of this company? If so its notability - or not - should stand on its own. If the company can only be covered in ways which would violate our BLP policy then that should impact whether or not we have an article at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, I have difficulty believing that a compliant version is possible. The only source of notability is the accusations sourced almost entirely to non-RS. The company is very closely related to the doctor and, even assuming all the coverage is correct, seems to be mostly a practice name rather than an organization with a significant staff. This makes separating the company's actions from the person's actions fuzzy at best. Thanks for posting the OTRS complaint for examination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two mentions of Dr Keen. First that he started the company and second that he sent a report without seeing a patient. Neither appear to be disputed. This is not “a very small”, “local” company. It provides services to a very large number of local authorities. The contracts with those councils are discussed in their local papers, as you would expect. Some of the critical coverage is based on court judgements. Also discussed in local papers. One council defends the company and that is included in the article. The lawyers do not appear to be disputing any of the contents, merely saying that the criticism is unfair. It may be, but that doesnt make it libellous. Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Independent, at least, is a reliable source providing substantial coverage. That NowMedical disagrees with its reporting does not make it less reliable. Also, contra Eggishorn, whether the allegation made in The Independent or elsewhere have merit or not has nothing to do with whether the paper is reliable or the company is notable. Coverage for false allegations is still coverage. Together with the other sources, I think the notability bar is passed here. Sandstein 09:57, 6 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 no consensus. It has not been compellingly demonstrated that GNG or NRADIO (NBROADCAST) is met, (original programming? Affiliate of notable network perhaps?) but I see no consensus to delete, either. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DXDD-FM[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable Philippines radio station stub. This was accepted by Robert McClenon from AFC but I'm afraid I see no indication that this passes WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. The two sources provided are both primary sources that simply list the station in a directory, but confer no notability whatsoever. I see no obvious candidate for a redirect. Hug^syrup 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Catholic Media Network#FM Stations Nothing exceptional about this station; all easily covered in the CNM table. Nate • (chatter) 01:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing notable about it, there are two references, one paragraph, and the owner of DXDD-FM doesn't even have an article. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 2 links in the article states that the station exists. Therefore, since the station is license by the NTC, the article is good enough to pass WP:BROADCAST. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, don't bother responding because arguing with me over my vote won't change anything at all. I'm not looking for an argument or debate here. So, I won't reply any further. I stand by my vote no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well thanks for your positive attitude towards the AfD process. I won’t argue with you, but I will state for the benefit of anyone else reading your !vote that mere existence is not the required standard of WP:BROADCAST, and certainly not the required standard of the GNGs. Hug^syrup 07:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on a very broad interpretation of radio notability, including its operator also having an FM station. With only 456,976 possible call letters, we don't need to prevent pollution of mainspace. I agree with User:Superastig that most arguing at AFDs is useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons stated by Superastig and Robert McClenon. SBKSPP (talk) 07:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Supercars Championship[edit]

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

~~WP:TOOSOON, one confirmed driver change is not enough to justify an article at this stage. Fecotank (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With Holden being retired by the end of 2020, I think it will be interesting to see how it will go with other teams, will they move to other manufacturers? Or will they withdraw from the series. Plus the possibility of Gen3 to be fast-tracked to 2021 to cater for Holden's retirement.Hiflex480 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, in time there will be enough coverage to justify an article, but so far nothing has been announced. Fecotank (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Fails WP:SIGCOV. A Google search for "2021 Supercars Championship" -wikipedia.org brought up just over 100 results, and most appeared to be blogs, forums, and the like. There simply isn't enough evidence to suggest that this is already considered a notable event. However, previous races of this type most certainly are notable, so I believe it is simply a matter of time. I suggest keeping this as a draft until more reliable sources can be found to back up the information in the article as well as to establish notability. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has since been improved. Retracting !vote. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is probably the best part as it's way too soon to see what the fallout of this is going to be with the removal of Holden. At best it's probably best to keep it as a draft but for now I would say delete it and create within six or seven months when we have more info. HawkAussie (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was over sighted with my thought and if it wasn't for Holden removing themselves from 2021, then I would have gone the other way. For now I switch my vote to Keep. HawkAussie (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — GM's decision to end the Holden brand has significant implications for the championship. One Holden team has already announced that they will not enter Holdens in 2021 and the sport's management has indicated their willingness to bring forward major regulation changes in response to this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources have been added since the beginning of the discussion. Do they present enough coverage, or is it still WP:TOOSOON?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I reckon with WAU no longer driving Commodores in 2021, it may start up a flow on effect, with other teams potentially switching manufacturers. This has also seen Gen3 being push forward to 2021, as what Sean Seamer, Supercars CEO, has said. But that being said, it's possible for Opel to return to Australia, meaning that some Commodores may be simply re-badged as Opels. I don't think it's WP:TOOSOON, but more of a watch and wait sort of thing. Because who knows who will jump from Holden next? Hiflex480 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator, agree events have changed since the nomination. Have stuck my original comment and am changing my vote to a keep. Fecotank (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mclarenfan17. - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft WP:TOOSOON. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will get out of the way. WP:SKCRIT is met. Nomination withdrawn. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 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 no consensus. There's been no analysis of the sources presented by keep proponents (for reliability, significant coverage, and WP:ROUTINE). The article has already been relisted twice, so no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jalaluddin Umri[edit]

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

Non notable Indian Islamist. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 10 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)} 20:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The person was quoted[16] by national media for his comments on topics like Triple talaq in India. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is much improved now. Fixed and updated existing 2 references, added 3 new references and included the above source suggested by KartikeyaS343 as an external link. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jalaluddin Umri was the Chief leader or Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, a major political and religious party in India from 2007 to 2019 and was repeatedly elected by the party members for four terms. In addition, he is considered to be an authority on human rights and Muslim family system in India. That's why he served as Vice-President on the all-India national body All India Muslim Personal Law Board from 2011 to 2019. News coverage on him is easily available by many major Indian newspapers as shown on the now improved article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pretty clear consensus to keep; discussions about renaming can be had at WP:RM ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil films of the 1940s[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A confusing set of articles, and although I am sure the article creator acted in good faith, they are redundant. Despite the title of the articles, the lists originally contained lists of songs the creator deemed the most notable from each decade of Indian films, all of which was OR and completely unsourced. Other editors have removed these song lists, because they didn't match up to the title of the article, leaving them simply as ten lines of links to articles for List of Tamil films of (year). This effectively makes the article a navbox, and there is already a navbox for this purpose at Template:Tamil cinema. There is a reason why films (and other media) are listed by year rather than decade, it would make the article too long – these articles are simply redundant. I think these probably don't qualify for A3 speedy deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from exactly the same issues and therefore the results will be "keep all" or "delete all":

Richard3120 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article plus all other Tamil films by decade articles in this category Category:Lists of Tamil films by decade and the category itself. I agree with the nominator they are redundant to the navbox which outlines every list of Tamil language films by year instead. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable navigational aid. How is this any different from all of the other lists in Category:Lists of films by decade, e.g. List of Telugu films of the 1930s? As a random example, List of Soviet films of the 1930s also has a navbox. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: I accept it might be a useful navigational aid (although I don't really see the point of having a page that just consists of two types of navigational aids). But it's not a list, so should the article title be changed? Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of lists, and the others have the same misleading format, e.g. List of Mexican films of the 1940s, so yes they should be renamed List of lists of xxx films of the nnnns. (P.S. I didn't say it was a particularly useful aid.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those articles are fine as they are as they are a list of films over that decade, they are short enough that separation by year is not required. Technically these articles up for deletion are lists of lists, instead of lists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, at least some the ones that contain films rather than sublists will probably fill out and have to be split. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An aid to navigation. It sounds like the content issue has already been dealt with. Pburka (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge The year articles can be listed for navigation at Lists of Tamil-language films. It is utterly silly to have separate pages for each decade. Reywas92^Talk 22:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All but the first link there redirects to one of the articles nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 20:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't see why this is a reason not to merge. Couldn't List of Tamil-language films easily be edited to have sections by decade that include each List of Tamil films of the 1930s, List of Tamil films of the 1940s, etc. listed? If merged, that would mean that the content from the deleted articles could be moved into one place. - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are used for navigation reasons. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it assist with navigation. You could also perhaps merge this all together. Dream Focus 20:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is certainly a list article which is a work in progress. Abishe (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If its use is purely navigational, I feel like this would me a much more helpful list if it was merged all together into a single "List of Tamil films by decade," or even if it was merged into Lists of Tamil-language films as mentioned by Reywas92 (although I think the title of that article should possibly include "by decade.") I don't see any reason these should be separate lists. - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:30, 5 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 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. Tone 21:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak[edit]

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

This is a fork from the main 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak article. Half of it repeats what's at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. The remainder lumps together two very different things, which could come under other articles. It's barely getting any editing attention, unlike all the other coronavirus articles. WP:CRIT argues against having "Controversies of..." articles. Let's delete this and any useful text can be moved elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strange lumping of very unrelated stuff. There's nothing here that wouldn't be better off merged to Wuhan Institute of Virology, 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak#Epidemiology, and 2020 Summer Olympics. b uidhe 20:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Controversies only somewhat related, and some of them are probably WP:UNDUE to be mentioned in an article, like the rather bizarre one included comparing the incorrectly assumed Wuhan lab logo to the Resident Evil franchise. Hog Farm (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a ragtag collection of incidences related to the Covid-19 outbreak, some of them speculations and should probably be placed under the misinformation article, and it's too early to tell if the Olympics will be controversial. Probably only one item listed can be considered a true controversy, putting the rest under controversies may be WP:OR. However, I think a controversy article may be warranted if there are sufficient content and enough coverage of such controversies, and I can think of a couple of things not listed that might be considered controversial, but as it is, there isn't sufficient content. Deletion is possible, but I also think a redirect is worth considering. Hzh (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Controversy as a separate page is awkward and no one knows which fit in misinformation and which fit in controversy. Recommend merging some of the items into the misinformation piece, putting some back in the main piece, and deleting the rest with undue weight.Newslack (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if topic editors think there's anything useful here). Ill-advised at best. -- Visviva (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fringe. ⌚️ (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content is not related to each other and should be add to their separate pages if needed. --Efly (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, but keep edit history in case someone wants to merge content. Does look like a content fork with content to be merged elsewhere, but not a "POV fork".My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per My very best wishes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I'm fine with this redirect suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The page would be useful later on if content needs to be merged to it. Sleath56 (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect So that history is maintained.FobTown (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with factual information. for those who wanna talk about gossip, controversies or unverified news, please do so in gossip magazines. Chongkian (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morgane Polanski[edit]

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

I'm nominating for deletion on the basis that notability is not inherited. She truthfully lacks independent notability at this time outside of being the daughter of the preeminent French director. The role on Vikings doesn't absolve that. ⌚️ (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as notability isn't inherited and she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with deletion, she is an actor, and very talented, clearly she deserves to be listed on Wikipedia. some may not like her father, but it has nothing to do with this young woman, she is starting her career, and I for one wish her all the best. User:Julieprus 03:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Julieprus: you should vote keep with your comment if you want her article to remain. Can you find more sources in Polish? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Julieprus: I like it is not valid. Being talented is not criteria for inclusion. It’s about general notability guidelines. ⌚️ (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing coverage in W Magazine, Harpers Bazaar (blog, but one meeting WP:RS) and the UK Telegraph. It is admittedly challenging to use a search engine to find material about her that is not primarily about her fugitive father, but it does seem to be out there if one takes the time to sift. TJRC (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: That W wasted so many words to say how her father gave her her first role as a child before throwing in a sentence about Vikings in the end is exactly what I’m talking about. And two more sources doing the same thing. Going on and on about anecdotes with her father but nothing special about her own career. Nothing about that is in the realm of independent notability. ⌚️ (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to coverage in publications, one should look at the list of movies where she played a role. At least three of them are famous, even if she did not play any of main characters. She also played main character in a major TV series. All of that combined makes her passable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are quite a few articles out there which discuss the subject. Though you'll be hard-pressed to find an article that doesn't mention her father, I don't see this as detrimental to WP:GNG, since she is being discussed in her own right as an up-and-coming actress. If anything, it might be a little soon for an article on her, but, since the nominated issue is sourcing, I think notability is made out. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she payed a fairly major character on a French TV show. Talent has nothing, I add, to influence notability; we have articles on many bad actors and films. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She appears to have enough notability and coverage as an actress in multiple shows and/or movies, and not just as a famous person's daughter. I believe that deleting would be futile, because considering the output and coverage she already has, and assuming she continues to work in similarly distributed and heralded film/TV, she will only continue to maintain, perhaps increase, her notability at least as an actress. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. RS has been brought to this AfD even if it is not in the article. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I viewed before only to see cute stories about childhood in the Polanski household rather than career achievements. ⌚️ (talk) 01:34, 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 21:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nanton[edit]

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

Promotional/branding "profile" for a professional promoter of "branding" services; I strongly suspect undisclosed COI editing. Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page should be trimmed down for some WP:PROMO but looks like the page meets WP:N overall. Snavehunter (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - technically passes my standards for lawyers and his multiple Emmy wins, even if local or minor, make him a notable producer. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Snavehunter and Bearian. Article is notable enough to be kept. _SUPER ^ASTIG 05:59, 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. The creator has admitted to the apology of not adding sources, the total consensus has been "Keep", and there are adequate sources to uphold the article's notability. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shular v. United States[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced and lacks any verifiable information about it other than a few third party blogs that fail Wp:RS. No evidence of notability could be found even after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My apologies - I got distracted and forgot to fill out the citations after I created the article. The article is still in a barebones state but I have included additional sources that should hopefully pass muster. Omanlured (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something's wrong with your searches. —Cryptic 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the issue is not "does the subject exist?" it is "is the subject notable?" Nome of those sources are evident of notability. Michepman (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then my apologies. Your searches are fine; something's wrong with your concept of notability. All of these address the topic directly and in detail; show evidence of editorial integrity; are secondary; and are independent. —Cryptic 18:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented by Cryptic. Most Supreme Court cases are notable and this is no exception. b uidhe 18:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cryptic. In its current state, the article would surely meet with even the most hard-shelled deletionist's approval. But even the article had remained unimproved since the nom, this would still not be an appropriate use of the deletion process. There is simply no way that a present-day decision from the US Supreme Court would fail to garner enough coverage to pass the GNG with flying colors. Thus, even for those who subscribe to the widespread-on-AFD but inaccurate belief that the GNG creates a free-standing basis for deletion, there was never going to be such a basis for deletion here. So absent some sort of hoax, this was always just going to be a cleanup issue. And even when nominated, the article had ample sourcing to show that it was not a hoax. -- Visviva (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A single blog website and a primary source link are hardly "ample". Even in its current sources the only WP:RS are websitez that regurgitate and/or house primary source texts. Turning primary sources into article content is WP:SYNTH and Original Research. The only non-blog, non-OR submissions presented are articles that mention incidential details but lack the depth needed to verify the claims being made. Given that the article contains BLP material (eg the full name, personally identifying information, and a perhaps needlessly detailed criminal history of an otherwise non-notable private individual), it is impportant IMHO to be stringent in applying Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reliable sourcings. Michepman (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - SCOTUSblog is a Peabody-award winning journalistic outfit, and it is run by Tom Goldstein, a Harvard law professor who specialized in Supreme Court litigation. I think that it should qualify as a reliable source. Omanlured (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - And WP:RSN agrees. Also: in what possible world are those primary sources? —Cryptic 14:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - For one, those threads are fairly out of date and only mention the blog tangentially. They would be acarcely enough to establish a local consensus as to notability, let alone a sitewide one. For two, several of the other sources are really just links to the legal case in question and are being used as "sources" for the editor's own personal interpretation. The editor needs to find RELIABLE, SECONDARY sources and cannot rely on WP:LINKSPAM to paper over the thinness. Michepman (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Clearly a notable subject. You'd be hard-pressed to find any U.S. Supreme Court case that's not notable, and this is not one of them. TJRC (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, notability is not inherited. While many SCOTUS cases are notable, not all are - as you can see, not every SCOTUS caae has an article now. the only sources provided this far are ones that namecheck the ruling but provide very little direct and indepth coverage. Michepman (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one has claimed notability by inheritance. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cryptic - Coverage of legal topics in easy-to-understand language is important. We shouldn't be trying to delete Supreme Court cases that have enough references to be verified, as this one does, nor trying to argue that Supreme Court cases are not notable. By the time they've got to that level, they're usually important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Gazamp (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- SCOTUS opinions are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supreme court cases are notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bloomberg News and SCOTUSblog are reliable sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:44, 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 21:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle Champion: Kinnikutō Kessen[edit]

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

does not meet notability criteria to be an article; there are no sources whatsoever N2e (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has a GameFAQs page here, enough to redirect to List of Konami games. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game exists, but redirecting to the list is useless considering it offers no info on the game itself and therefore the redirect fails WP:RFD#DELETE Criteria 10 ("the target article contains virtually no information on the subject"). I was unable to find any significant coverage of the game, let alone multiple, despite searching in the Japanese name as well. Hence it fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was reviewed by Famitsu (although their preview snippet of the review is corrupted), but I am unable to find any other significant coverage of it - if it exists, it seems likely to be confined to Japanese game magazines from the early 2000s.--Alexandra^IDV 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: for the record, the game's subtitle seems to be incorrect? I believe it should be Kinnikujima no Kessen (which Japanese WP agrees with me on). Just in case the article does get merged or the game still is mentioned somewhere.--Alexandra^IDV 17:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced non notable article, Alex-h (talk) 17:36, 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 All India Congress Committee. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Election Committee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG Hemant Dabral^Talk 01:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into All India Congress Committee assuming that it does factually exist and that no other organizations by that name exist. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 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. Per WP:SNOW. There is no prospect of a "delete" consensus emerging. Sandstein 13:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus outbreak in France[edit]

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

France doesn't even began an notable outbreak yet ~Nick~{talk} 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. --2601:444:380:8C00:5400:D7D9:E4E6:9A32 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reason for deletion is absurd. Mimihitam (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable.--Staberinde (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as time progress, this article now undergo the expansion including new cases. 22:36 26 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.242.51.208 (talk)
Keep - It could not be more notable. Besides, it is an extremely well-sourced articles. Kudos to its editors!!!! XavierItzm (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - France reported 2 deaths, that is so notable already. I mean seriously, this is an unfolding event and fast-growing facts are coming in every single day. At this moment of time, we should focus first on how to gather and collect all of those data, instead of focusing which one not notable enough to be immediately deleted. If we want to talk about deletion, at least wait until this outbreak has been subsided and we shall see which articles have no substantial content or which articles are redundant (can be merged with other related similar articles). But those shall only be done after this outbreak has been fully subsided, not now when we keep hearing the first infection in every new countries in Europe or Latin America, and also when some cities have been declared emergency. Chongkian (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. --hueman1 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge Delete~~ It would make a lot more sense to maintain the main article 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe sensibly, instead of spreading epidemic rampant panic articles here in wild salami tactics.There is currently no epidemic in France.

~Nick~{talk} 13:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you think that 2020 coronavirus outbreak in France should be merged, not deleted, you should withdraw your nomination and close the discussion, and then go through the process of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable event. --Mvvnlightbae (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is Wikipedia and wiki publishing at its best, and an important public service. The reason cited for deletion -- "there is currently no epidemic in France" -- seems like an agenda of censorship. 2:21 28 February — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.207.45 (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I live in France and this page is a useful source of information. If you have this much detail for each country in a single European page it would become unmanageable. MeBeMe3000 (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is currently the biggest and most important news out there. The article provides critical information for both travelers and regular people in France. Please close this as keep ASAP. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is an important event.--Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 10:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! This article by far is better than any other similar articles such as 2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States or 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Italy which does not go into detailed information (such as source, origin, status, etc.) about the victims and patients of the outbreak. On the contrary, this article does! So why do you have to delete the better article while keeping the poorly updated/outdated one? —SquidHomme ^(talk) 11:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep without question. This article now undergo major expansion as time progress. There are not reason to delete that notable article. Arguments about there is no epidemic in France is false and hoax. ~Nick~ is not understand the actual situation in France that now have 41 cases in the country. Is this cases isn't epidemic? No way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.1.28.78 (talk) 12:12, 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. Consensus to delete grounded in policy. KaisaL (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newstrend[edit]

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

non notable news site sourced to spammy pr sites and fake news sources (like "ceo magazine") number of followers or fans are completely irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Praxidicae all references provided here non-notable such as ANI News, Yahoo!, Alexa, Blasting News. But i can see clearly all these websites are notable and trusted even listed on Wikipedia. User Praxidicae also claimed followers on Facebook page are fake. How is it possible all 6.3 million followers are fake that indicates Facebook running a fake business of its fake users, is it so? Now my comment for Theceomagazine: It is not a fake website it has a registered office in New Delhi, India.) Slowthin (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceo magazine is pay for publishing spammy nonsense. The sources you cite as lending notability are press releases, stats, not coverage, another press release, a site know well for it's lack of truthful reporting, not reliable and not coverage.Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my all questions in the above comment. However i am explaining further for your comments: It seems like you want to prove yourself true by removing content from Blasting News. 1200+ Alexa Global ranking is itself a good notability factor of the company. Asian News International is not a press release website. Newstrend is a news website which is a good resource in itself. It is not an e-commerce website selling goods and products. And most importantly you must not ignore my point that it has 6.3 million followers which is again a good notability factor (According to you these are irrelevant).Slowthin (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, alexa is not coverage and it's just stats. As far as Blasting News - I removed incorrect, unsourced content as per policy. You should re-read the ANI source, specificall the end where it's content by NEWSVOIR, a press release publishing service. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alexa is not a coverage but here Alexa.com is referenced to justify its Global ranking. And again you ignored my point that it has 6.3 million followers which is enough to justify its notability. And it is one of the top 10 most popular websites for receiving huge traffic. And most importantly it is a news website, it doesn't need more references to justify its notability.Slowthin (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidiae. Slowthin's keep rationales are not at all convincing. Followers, views, etc. are not notability. b uidhe 02:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe has no valid point according to Wikipedia Guidelines. What do you understand by Alexa ranking? And What do you understand by 6.3 million followers. This website has 1042 Global Alexa rank that shows this website has a huge traffic which is an indication of its notability. And this is a news website not a product selling e-commerce. These points are enough to justify its notability.Slowthin (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Not just the references are fake and spammy but the site itself has been accused of spreading fake news and spam[17]. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, WP:GNG. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:14, 5 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 no consensus. KaisaL (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Bass[edit]

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

This musicians how to pass WP:NMUSICIAN?. There doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and those included in the article are questionable at best (and some patently unreliable.) A search brought up little else actually related to this person. I also searched on Google which gave even fewer results. Idolmm (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I would not argue with anyone who cites the WP:TOOSOON standard, but these guys have made the hip hop news for a couple of high-profile collaborations with Lil Jon and Carnage. They tend to be merely introduced in these sources but the sources (like XXL, Hot New Hip Hop, Vents, etc.) are viable in themselves. They also have a starter profile at AllMusic. They would benefit from some more coverage that is specifically about them in detail, but I think there may be enough for a stub article now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they have received coverage in reliable sources as detailed above such as WP:WikiProject Music approved sources such as XXL, HOT New Hip Hop, AllMusic and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from previous voter - If my "weak keep" vote above is a reason for the apparent lack of consensus, consider it to be a true keep vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is literally no coverage of this duo at all in the sources provided, just mentions of the name. There is no way this could be called "substantial coverage". I did some searching and all I could find was this promotional material [18]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the last poster as the references have more than just name mentions and in total equate to significant coverage in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 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 keep. The "delete" opinions merely assert non-notability, but fail to discuss why the sources being offered by the "keep" side are insufficient. Sandstein 11:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R. C. Unnithan[edit]

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

FFailed to pass WP:NPOL WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG, discussed in The history of trade union movement in Kerala (pp.551,554), from significant Kerala family, brother of Adoor Gopalakrishnan (photo here), obituary in Mathrubhumi|. AfD is not clean-up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsztajn (talk • contribs)

Comment: If you have more reliable sources that prove his notability, you can submit here. I admit Adoor Gopalakrishnan is a notable person.but that doesn't transfer here-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 16:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padavalamkuttanpilla - can you please describe what WP:BEFORE, in particular parts B and D, you did before nominating?--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padavalamkuttanpilla - your userpage indicates you are a native speaker of Malayalam - I can only access RC Unnithan's obitary via a poor Google translate, but what is there indicates notable activities throughout his life, which could be verified (although mostly from Malayali sources). Did you explore this? Why do you see nothing notable there? --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that, absent significant coverage, mayors of even medium-sized cities like this subject are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bearian I don't understand your comment: "even medium-sized cities like this subject". The subject was an advocate (lawyer), AITUC/CITU trade unionist, writer and CPI(M) candidate, solely applying NPOL is not appropriate here. He was deemed worthy enough of attention to be imprisoned during the Emergency. His prison diary is a notable text held in multiple libraries. The difficulty is that the vast majority of text concerning him is in Malayali, but that is not a limit to his notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, None of those common posts merit an article. FYI, According to Amnesty International, 140,000 people had been arrested during the twenty months of emergency. I am sure you don't mean that all these are fit to get an article. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray - there's a vast difference between being arrested and spending almost two years in gaol. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, As you can see I have not yet made up my mind on this AfD and still sitting on the fence. I wanted to point the obvious thing that came to my mind after reading your comment. Being a popular activist or a notable author does merit an article but someone needs to establish this that he is a cut above the rest. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 12:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to satisfy WP:GNG per sources provided by Goldsztajn. I must also add, nowhere does it state or has been argued that he was a mayor of anywhere, so I do not understand what Bearian is alluding to. From what I gather he seems to be primarily a trade unionist. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the (insufficient) text of the nomination is inadequate; especially given that this AfD is contested. This is not a vote.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Its not a vote. So I voted delete and said why I have voted.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have mixed him up with a similarly-named person. This subject meets my standards for notable lawyers, as doing things other than just defending clients or suing persons. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 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 keep. Many "delete" opinions merely assert non-notability, but fail to discuss why the sources being offered by the "keep" side are insufficient. Sandstein 11:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. Geenakumari[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Failed to pass WP:POLITICIAN Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. ~~Fails WP:NPOL~~ Though she has not won any major election or public post. She does get passing mention due to her petitions on the Supreme court case of Entry of women to Sabarimala [19] [20]. ~~I dont think this merits an article for this person.~~ DBig Xrayᗙ 11:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote due to below sources found by Tayi Arajakate that show that subjects is a prominent Women rights activist. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has relatively significant sustained coverage as a women's rights activist beyond what DBigXray already mentioned to pass per WP:POLOUTCOMES.^[1]^[2]^[3] She has also been cited in the works of the International Development Research Centre and the Laurie Baker Centre for Habitual Studies.^[4]^[5] In light of these, she should pass WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Alimony to women is not a welfare scheme but a right: Activists". Indian Express. 21 December 2010.
^ "T'puram is Kerala's divorce capital too". News 18. Thiruvananthapuram. 2 March 2012.
^ "School students in Thiruvananthapuram can now get sanitary napkins for free". edX. 16 July 2019.
^ Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications. p. 185. ISBN 978-1-55250-551-9 – via International Development Research Centre.
^ Kannan, K.P; Raveendran, G (October 2017). "Poverty, Women and Capability" (PDF). Laurie Baker Centre for Habitual Studies: 34.

Keep per press coverage discussed above, played a role in the Entry of women to Sabarimala saga, member of the Board of Directors of the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation, senior SFI representative (from largest or 2nd largest SFI state) ... pretty easy pass of the GNG....and one for the record: AfD is not cleanup.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above which demonstrates that she passes WP:GNG and is notable as an activist. IphisOfCrete (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Dear Folks, I could not find anything out there to establish her notability. there is no notable works from this women. And also there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so it fails WP:GNG WP:BASIC WP:NPOL WP:ANYBIO BTW,if you have more reliable sources, that in depth, it would be helpful -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 09:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per Tayi Arajakate. Idolmm (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provides almost no coverage of her, they just mention her name which is trivial coverage. Currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:GNG. She is not just a politician but an activist too with significant contributions in her fields. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have any achievements to Pass WP:GNG.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 16:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padavalamkuttanpilla WP:IDONTLIKE ?. Idolmm (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idolmm No never,kindly note WP:SOAP I just highlights what wikipedia admin Pax:Vobiscum said above .If you have reliable sources that have in-depth mention about her name and activities..?-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable women rights activist. Many references are already added above. However, these references need to be added to the article as well. There is also a book written by her.^[1] - The9Man | (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the source above mentioned.but there is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is failed WP:GNG.If there any other reliable sources besides this, it may be helpful to review.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 08:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This subject meets the requirements for WP:ANYBIO for her widely recognized contribution to the women empowerment field. This is well covered in the above references. - The9Man | (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Director of the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation (KSWDC).^[2]^[3] She was in the sub-committee of Kudumbashree, a major social reformation initiative for the society.^[4] She is also known for her works for the Sabarimala verdict.^[5]^[6]
- The9Man | (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "സുശീലാഗോപാലന്‍ ജീവിതകഥ". keralabookstore.com.
^ https://kswdc.org/board-of-directors/
^ https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapuram/Ex-MLA-appointed/article16076360.ece
^ http://kudumbashree.org/storage/files/1yzdo_kshree%20full%20ms_kpkcorrected%20with%20cover_08.11.17-1.pdf
^ https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/sabarimala-contempt-petitions-in-sc-against-prevention-on-women-entry-1.3249159
^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/clashes-rock-kerala-day-after-women-enter-sabarimala-temple-250-injured-during-bandh/story-4TkIeRCihntNbPmoGVghQM.html

Hi The9Man,

1 This is not a popular book and the book has not received any notable coverage.

2 She is one of the eight directors of the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation.So the remaining eight people are eligible for the wiki page..?

3News article about Former MLA K.S. Saleekha has been appointed as chairperson of the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation.

4This is a pdf file uploaded to an unreliable website and there is no in-depth mention.

5,6 Thousands of young women have taken part in the Sabarimala woman's entry .If you have any doubt u can check this articles Entry of women to Sabarimala ,Ready To Wait campaign,Vanitha Mathil you will understand.She does not played any major role in Sabarimala women's entry.so this article clearly fails WP:GNG Per WP:NPOL,WP:ANYBIO WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SOAP, WP:RS, and WP:MILL.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 12:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finishing it here from my end.
1 I think it's a biography book, so let's disregard it for the lack of further references.

2 Number of directors don't matter if the position is notable.
So the remaining eight people are eligible for the wiki page..? - Why not if they are notable?

3 News article about Former MLA K.S. Saleekha has been appointed as chairperson of the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation. - Yes, but the article also mentions the directors appointed including the subject.

4This is a pdf file uploaded to an unreliable website and there is no in-depth mention. - It is the Government website of Kudumbashree and very much reliable.

5,6 Thousands of young women have taken part in the Sabarimala woman's entry .If you have any doubt u can check this articles Entry of women to Sabarimala ,Ready To Wait campaign,Vanitha Mathil you will understand.She does not played any major role in Sabarimala women's entry. - T. Geenakumari filed various petitions in this matter. If you go through the articles it is clearly mentioned.

Hense this article meets WP:ANYBIO and I believe it can be fixed through normal editing, not a candidate for AfD.
I leave it up to the wisdom of others. The9Man | (talk) 10:36, 7 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Palacios[edit]

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

Significant activity on the page written by the subject of the page, including accounts that look suspiciously like sock-puppets. Only two external references, and one is a link to a portfolio site (WP:RS). The article seems more like self-advertisement than anything else (it even includes two headshots). SiliconRed (talk) 15:43, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search found nothing in RS. Self promotion without notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could not find any significant, verifiable coverage in reliable sources. Why so many photos of the the artist himself? That seems like PROMO, possible COI issues. Netherzone (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The second citation, is basically just an artwork collection, there isn't anything about him. Also, there isn't that much significant coverage, meaning no notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article about a non-notable photographer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:MILL, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:CREATIVE, WP:V, and WP:SIGCOV. This is a spammy essay about a run of the mill artist - he has an atelier, but no gallery to represent him. Although an artist based in a World cultural capital can be notable, it's far from automatic; see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason McCoy Inc. Because photographers are so common, we tend to be especially cautious at AfD. The inability to source peacock-y claims from reliable sources is suspicious. 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Diamond[edit]

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

Apart from the one relatively short review in Next Generation (which is apparently for a Nintendo 64 version, not a PC game), there appears to have been written next to nothing about this game, even though it has been released for PC and Iphone and the like. Fails WP:N as far as can be told from online sources (which, for late 1990s and later video games, is not a bad indicator usually). Fram (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GameRankings lists another review for the PC version from ACG. No-one apparently reviewed the N64 version or the iPhone version. I'm for non-notable, but given its appearance in Next Generation, favor a listing and redirect to List of PC games (R). --Izno (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient WP:RS to crest WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NVG. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:03, 5 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, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictioneers[edit]

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

Lacks notability. One "capsule review", and that's it. Nothing else in the 13 Google hits[21] (well, 13 issues later the same magazine noted in passing that the range was being discontinued...), obviously nothing in Google Books. No redirect target. Fram (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The single review being used as a source appears to be the only real source regarding the set, which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 01:42, 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 keep. POV issues can be fixed with normal editing. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Beyer[edit]

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

Sources I've found on Google only appear to be passing mentions for events he performed in with a variety of other musicians, a couple interviews, some social media, and an apparent press release in disguise. As such, it appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. If there's better coverage out there, my WP:BEFORE isn't finding it. Waggie (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Waggie (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waggie (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I performed a WP:BEFORE check on this as well, and came up finding that this failed our criteria. There are not enough reliable sources covering this subject significantly, almost all press articles are stating he is in lineups and are passing mentions... Everything else appears to be either PR coverage, primary sourcing, or lacking in significance. If there are other sources, I'd be happy to see them. But as of now, I have to say I don't think this should be retained. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Looks like a paid promo. Angus1986 (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has quite a decent staff written bio at AllMusic here which states that he is a significant figure in the techno scene which would pass criteria 7 of WP:NMUSIC, there are also four staff album reviews there not counting the very short ones. Will do a search for more sources later, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, have found some more significant coverage here in DJ Mag which is a WikiMusic Project reliable source here, here, and here, Spin magazine here, Dancing Astronaut which is a WikiProject EDM rs here and a Dutch newspaper here. There is also the AllMusic coverage mentioned earlier, there are some interviews but I think all told there is enough prose to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are plenty reliable sources, the subject obviously meets WP:GNG and Drumcode's impact on techno music is irrefutable the page is too promotional and should be deleted. GDX420 (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be rewritten rather than deleted, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other than the abundance of nicknames which seems a bit over the top, I don't see anything too promotional here. It meets WP:GNG and has a number of bluelinked pages of note, so why not WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and add some more of the DJMag and AllMusic sources. Llemiles (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Atlantic306 has found enough sources to demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMUSIC. And Atlantic306 findings of sources. BabbaQ (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMUSIC WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 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 speedy delete A7. by User:Deb on February 28, 2020 (non-admin closure) - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 18:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Bindra[edit]

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

Lack of notability and WP:PROMO. Previously deleted following Afd at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivek_Bindra and has not improved since. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:32, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of independent reliable resources, Fails WP:GNG. DMySon 09:29, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefit[edit]

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

no indication of notability, fails WP:ORG, advertisement Divyam Seth (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORP. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:04, 5 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 Hanshin Tigers. Tone 21:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (mascot)[edit]

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

Seems to fail GNG. Disputed prod, disputed WP:SOFTDELETE redirect (to To Lucky, which was reverted). The editor who disputed both did add a merge proposal, but it is incomplete (no rationale) and there is no referenced content to merge anyway. No ja interwiki for this mascot (Lucky), a mention in To Lucky is enough. Given the lengthy ja wiki article about To Lucky, I am not convinced that one needs to be merged to Hanshin Tigers, it seems like it just needs to be expanded, but what I am pretty certain is that there is no need to split a mascot pair into two articles, and that this one (Lucky) is not even in need of SOFTDELETE, given lack of useful content, and the fact that SOFTDELETE was disputed anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Hanshin Tigers. Interestingly, the third character who is supposed to be her little brother does have a page on the Japanese Wikipedia (ja:キー太). Here, I am not sure that merging the female character to the male character is a very progressive approach. Although you didn't like the idea, I think merging both to Hanshin Tigers is probably in order. There is not too much prose there, and both mascots have no notability independent of the club. It was mentioned that the Japanese Wikipedia article for To Lucky is fairly long, but it's not got a lot of real content. It's things like "To Lucky can take off his hat and wave it to the crowd or have it fall off when doing backflips, Lucky barely ever takes off her hat in front of people. However, pictures exist in which her hat is coming off.... Rarely, To Lucky takes off his uniform and does an impression of Antonio Inoki in wrestling tights.... To Lucky and Lucky used to have spikes on with Asics patterns, but this was changed to the sponsor Mizuno when the uniforms changed in 2012." All uncited, not the kind of stuff to base an article on here. Dekimasuよ! 12:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hanshin Tigers. This is a clear WP:POINT-nomination of an editor who does not accept alternatives for deletion. This is another case of a PROD that was turned down followed up by an AfD. The Banner talk 10:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But there is zero referenced content to merge... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. This could have just been done rather than wasting our time here. Smartyllama (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hanshin Tigers for lack of sufficient content. This article should not have been AfDd and definately should not have been prodded! gidonb (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gidonb: You do realize it was redirected, and the redirect was challenged? And there is nothing to merge, the target article (To Lucky) contains all relevant info. What (referenced) content present here not present in the target article do you want to merge? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's much like being arrested for burglary and telling the police: "do you realize I was pushed out of the house by the owner?" You prodded this as part of your mass prods. Three days later this was undone. Immediately you put on a notability template, then redirected the entire article without a proper discussion. Who put you in charge? Next, you AfD it and bludgeon people who are not happy with these actions around Wikipedia. People here are kept very busy with this daily destruction. If you must merge something use merge to and only merge to. gidonb (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hanshin Tigers. There's no sourced content, so there is actually nothing to merge. Reyk _YO! 05:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Both to Hanshin Tigers. As mentioned, there is no sourced content in either article to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 01:45, 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 21:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Saleem[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 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 speedy delete - procedural close. Article was speedy deleted under CSD#G3 as blatant hoax. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakane family[edit]

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

No reason for this family to be considered notable. The single source offered is a dead link from 2007 - supposedly "Retrieved 13 November 2011", in an article created 26 Feb 2020. Relevant information about notable people can be included in their own articles, but we don't need an article on this family. PamD 10:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PamD 10:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator Looking further, this single paragraph article is lifted from the lead of Bachchan family. I'm not sure whether there's a relevant Speedy Deletion criterion, but if there, is, can someone please apply it. PamD 10:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now nominated for CSD G3, hoax. PamD 11:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, most likely a abusive parody copy of Bachchan family. Dhakane means tick. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tayi Arajakate. Hog Farm (talk) 15:38, 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. Consensus notability (still) not met Nosebagbear (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulnar Virk Krishna[edit]

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

Subject does not pass the notability criteria, Fails WP:GNG. Previously deleted as per deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulnar Virk Krishna DMySon 10:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 10:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 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. Non-notable individual Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Dražić[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Iffy★Chat -- 09:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. No major tennis titles or achievements and can't find any sources that seem to indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also agree with nom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 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, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandra Oliynykova[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Iffy★Chat -- 09:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. No major tennis titles or achievements and can't find any sources that seem to indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No major tennis titles or achievements. And fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 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 21:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iva Primorac[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Iffy★Chat -- 09:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. No major tennis titles or achievements and can't find any sources that seem to indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 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 21:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulls–Heat rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ... Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. Moreover, routine coverage liberally uses the term rivalry to manufacture hype. This appears to be the case for a brief span in the early 2010s when Derrick Rose was at his prime with the Bulls. At this point, it looks like calling this a significant "rivalry" is WP:OR. —Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was no rivalry to speak of in the Jordan era (just butt stomping, with the Heat managing just one measly win in three playoff matchups) and they met too infrequently in the playoffs post-Jordan to generate any, well, heat. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 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. Consensus is for deletion of all nominated articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates[edit]

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

I'm nominating the lists of Big Brother housemates for deletion or merger, seasons 1–5, 7–9, and 11–19.* The people listed in these articles are nearly all non-notable on their own and thereby fail the criteria laid out at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Moreover, these lists do not fall under the exceptions listed there, which state that "In a few cases, such as lists of board members or academics holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness." (My emphasis.) There may be content that can be merged into the individual season articles or the main list of housemates. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Season six has been separately nominated alone by another user, and season ten is a redirect.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for the same reasons under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 6) housemates. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge and use the existing article. Similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Apprentice candidates (British series 1) so I'll just copy my response form there. The additional details on each person is their personal bio unrelated to the show. If these people are notable, they have an article which covers it and this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, if they don't have an article, they aren't notable and this info is just not needed. Anything specific to the show can be added, but should be limited to 1-2 sentences, similar to how non-reality TV shows or films summarize a character. There is definitely no need for any "play-by-play" re-cap of what he did on the show. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for reasons already adequately given. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this passes, this process should really be seen through as there are more articles at Category:Lists of reality show participants. --Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment Based on the current consensus I was prepared to close this as a delete, before noticing that it is supposed to cover all 19 series' articles, not just this one. I'm not sure how that should be handled: Some of the earlier series, I happen to know, were much, much higher profile in the UK and it's entirely possible some would argue that some series warrant this article, and others do not. The question therefore is, would it be good procedure to delete all of those articles on the back of this debate? It doesn't help that the AFD title doesn't follow the convention for listing multiple articles, nor does it have a bullet list of the articles. I'd argue this debate should only apply to the series 19 article, and that an additional AFD should be created with better process for the rest. KaisaL (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for WP:BUREAUCRACY. The nom has correctly tagged all articles as can be seen in List of Big Brother (British series 12) housemates, has clearly stated that this nomination is for the entire set and people in this discussion have clearly stated that they understand that it's for the entire set. See Ajf773's and RobinCarmody "delete all" vote. Any other resolution to this discussion is a clear violation of AfD and the consensus here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll leave it up to another admin to decide, but I still feel it's a valid point. I'm fully ambivalent to whether or not the closing admin agrees with me. KaisaL (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Do not delete the redirects. ミラ P 15:03, 6 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 speedy delete under WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and WP:G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). — Newslinger talk 12:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbune[edit]

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

Jumbune is a non-notable product created by the apparently non-notable company Impetus Technologies. I could only find one RS about Jumbune: [22]. Thus it fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. userdude 08:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. userdude 08:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. userdude 08:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. userdude 08:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Correction: the Yahoo! Finance article is not a reliable source. It is written by Impetus Big Data. (To learn more about Impetus Big Data offerings, visit bigdata.impetus.com or write to us at [email protected].)userdude 08:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created by one WP:SPA and subsequently edited by another, setting out the product features in the matter of a brochure. Searches are finding routine listings but not the coverage required to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

My apologies - I forgot to fill out the citations after I created the article.

Jumbune is a product of Impetus Technolgies Inc. Impetus got founded in 1991, head quarterd at Los Gatos, CA, is a partner of number of Fortune 100 clients.

These are the authentic sources for your reference:

Impetus Information

Jumbune on Impetus Press Release

Jumbune about us

Open Source commits of the product on Github - open source repository

Jumbune listed on Microsoft Azure Cloud Marketplace

Jumbune listed on Amazon AWS Cloud Marketplace

Jumbune website

None of the above sources is considered reliable for Wikipedia. In short, you need coverage in media with editorial oversight (eg. a review in published/online magazine, chapter in book by respected author/publisher etc.) to prove notability of the article subject. Blog posts, adverts, social media posts, company webpage etc. aren´t reliable sources. Pavlor (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Symposium Paper:

Thanks for the pointers. Here is one such research citation Here's a listing in IEEE research paper about Jumbune — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayankmishra (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks this paper was not submited for peer-review (conference paper only), I don´t think this confers much notability to the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbune is also enlisted in Microsoft Azure documentation as notable app to extend Azure cluster.

Jumbune on Microsoft Azure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkanungo (talk • contribs) 06:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The listing in Microsoft Azure documentation appears to be a routine list of all published Apache Hadoop applications, not indicative of notability. In general, information about a product belongs on the article of the company behind the product (see WP:NPRODUCT). However, I believe both the product and the company fail WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG⁠—for starters, all sources that can be used to determine notability must be independent of the subject. userdude 22:04, 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. Tone 21:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amphyl[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found this study that mentions 2 amphyl products (paragraph 6) but not much else. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chemicals are notable, but brands are not. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 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 21:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagaradina[edit]

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

I couldn't obtain anything reliable related to this topic in Google search index and fails WP:GNG. The tone of the content is breaching the WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced, neither myself or the nominator could confirm that this is not a WP:HOAX (I don't think it is, but we shouldn't keep any article unless it is 100% clear that it really exists). b uidhe 07:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NGEO.
The title appears to be a variation of "Sagardina", an apparently common name for places in the region. Hits for named populated places in East Champaran and Chakraghatta, Sarlahi. Since Sagardina isn't mentioned in either, redirect doesn't seem necessary, not to mention we wouldn't know which one deserves more, and that's completely ignoring the one in Bara District that the author seems to have intended this article for. The content in the article is almost certainly made-up since Nepal is unlikely to have data like that for "neighbourhood"s, and since the content is templated after Gamhariya, Sarlahi. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pranay Vivek Patil[edit]

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

He is a district level politician. He is a Zilla Panchayet member (please see this). First I have thought that he is an MLC. But, after reading the article carefully I have understood that Zilla Panchayet is translated here as District Legislative Council. The article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the discussion. District-level politicians aren't notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:56, 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 21:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Saario[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no links with other articles. The person has released only one single and it is WP:TOOSOON kind. The article needs more reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. I found this [23] article and this [24] interview about Saarino but I do not believe this qualifies as significant coverage. userdude 05:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Pepper[edit]

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

I mistakenly put this up for PROD when it is ineligible. Stub bio of non-notable artist. I could not find reliable independent sources to support it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NARTIST, BIO AND GNG. The sole reference is a spam link for a ministry. Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any independent in-depth coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Blue's Clues episodes#Season 1 (1996–98). Tone 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snack Time (Blue's Clues episode)[edit]

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

The user User:Tyoneer_glau is creating individual pages for individual episodes of the Blue's Clues. The articles created also are not up to the Wikipedia Policy mark (style, copyvio, references). They content large unnecessary information , which may be a copyvio. I think each episode should not have a different article. The different articles created till now are What Time Is It for Blue?", Snack Time (Blue's Clues episode) and Mailbox's Birthday. We can consider the result of this discussion for all the mentioned articles. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources to affirm notability and a wad of trivia and fancruft. I would nominate those other articles for deletion too, in this AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pre-school show where the same general plot is used episode-to-episode; recaps aren't needed here, especially in 'type-what-i-see-never-ending-paragraph-my-Enter-key-is-broken' form. Nate • (chatter) 14:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the Snack Time one to List of Blue's Clues episodes#Season 1 (1996–98). Nothing important about the individual episodes of this show. Redirect the others to the appropriate seasons heading. Hog Farm (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there really an audience looking for individual episodes of this series, though? It would be one thing for a primetime series, but for a show whose target audience barely knows the alphabet (and parents who are fine with a basic series/season/educational goals gist rather than episode-to-episode), very unlikely. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The episode is not independently notable, and there is no sourced content here to merge. I can see the argument that it could be used as a Redirect to the appropriate season list for the series, but I have to agree that it is likely not a common search. Rorshacma (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Blue's Clues episodes#Season 1 (1996–98). Per Hog Farm. _SUPER ^ASTIG 06:24, 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 delete. Only argument for keep came from a highly involved editor. This is the third deletion for this topic, perhaps any future recreation/pitch for inclusion should go through AFC? KaisaL (talk) KaisaL (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roger Currie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional and non-notable . Earlier versions of this were deleted, and this not an improvement.

Promotional:

overpersonal paragraph about his high school & college activities activities, which can be of no interest except to his associates, or, more likely in this case, to cause us to think of him in a positive light.
the very non-specific career. *the attempt to describe in detail--with a numbered list-- his approach to relationship advice, along with section on his "views",--to the extent that it seems to serve as an advertisement for his publications. *wording like "has been held in various cities all over the world" or "using his popular nickname"
extremely minor awards from groups in his own field
the sort of puffery which makes it seem significant to have given a single lecture at a university.
the sort of self-justification in section 2.3
most tellingly, the use of quotes from himself to make up about half the article.

not notable:

the need to make up the article from what he has said rather than what others say about him
all of his books are apparently self-published--almost none even in WorldCat)
there are no book reviews in any major publication.
Half the references are his own press releases or publications
the remainder are interviews where he says what he cares to, talk show appearances, and mere notices of his presentations in minor papers. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least get rid of the spam and WP:REFBOMBing with NINE citations to his own press releases. The rest of the sources are mainly his comments but not actually about him. Author is connected to the subject (obviously). Reywas92^Talk 08:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly does not meet notability requirements. Indyguy (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR criteria #1 and criteria #2. Anyone who is familiar with the Attraction & Seduction Community or the Dating advice and Relationship advice genre of book authors and experts knows who Alan Roger Currie is; Pay special attention to criteria #2 under Creative Professionals. This is probably Currie's most valid criteria of the four listed; He is well-known internationally in the dating & relationships advice industry for creating The Four Modes of Verbal Communication; The vast majority of men's dating advice experts and attraction & seduction gurus featured on Wikipedia promote tactics which are misleading or manipulative; Currie was arguably the very first men's dating advice coach to promote the idea of upfront, straightforward honesty with women 1 and without any dishonesty or "manipulative head games" involved; Currie's Wikipedia page has existed now for just under five years. Currie has done nothing but gain even more credibility since the page was originally created back in 2007 or 2008. If you delete Currie's Wiki page, then you might as well delete any and all men who are associated with the infamous Attraction & Seduction Community, such as Erik von Markovik, Roosh V, Julien Blanc, Mark Manson, or just about any other 'expert' or 'guru' in the dating and relationships advice field. If editing is what needs to be done, then that is what should be done. But I see no valid reason for complete deletion of this article. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Smooth, I was asked to comment here and I definitely agree with the delete votes: this article is very (self-)promotional. I recommend making a copy in your userspace and workshopping it there, removing all of the press releases. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked those pages just mentioned. I think there are reasons to question the notability of some, and I've indicated accordingly; there are reasons to doubt the promotional nature of almost all, and I've indicated accordingly. I'm keeping track of them all & a few other for eventual afds.. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not understand how an article about a man who is arguably the most internationally known professional dating coach is up for deletion. If this article is deleted, then who on Wikipedia truly represents the field of dating coaching?? I just examined some articles about Life Coaches such as Abiola Abrams, Simon T. Bailey, Tony Gaskins, Steve Pavlina, Zan Perrion, and Matthew Hussey. Are these representative of a well-written Wiki article? Or no? Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WHATABOUTX. At a glance, Matthew Hussey is the only one which doesn't have obvious and serious problems. (It may have serious problems, but they aren't obvious). So what you are asking is also an admission that Wikipedia has a spam problem. The way to fix this is with better, independent sources, but the place to discuss other articles is on those articles' talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is overly promotional and needs to be removed from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chicago Smooth asked me to comment. As I told that editor in 2015, relying on press releases is a bad idea, but Chicago Smooth more-or-less ignored my advice. Looking closer at these sources, they are worse than I initially thought. Further, I do not accept this editor's claims to not have a conflict of interest, as they have been a WP:SPA who's spent several years promoting this obscure personality based on sources that nobody else would care about. The article screams WP:AUTOBIO. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 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 merge to Ramayana#Characters. Sandstein 14:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the Ramayana[edit]

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

Currently the copy paste of 2 minor character articles. This article a WP:STARTOVER candidate. Can be modelled on the list in Ramayana#Characters Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not clean-up. This should be moved to List of characters in the Ramayana, and then it should be expanded. Kindly see List of characters in The Witcher series, and List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, and especially Ramayana#Characters. They are select few. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ramayana#Characters as a WP:FORK Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Edited to change target. Original would have created a double redirect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there is a better overview of the article subject at Ramayana#Characters. Therefore, redirect there. b uidhe 22:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ramayana#Characters. It's an unnecessary content fork but this article has at least some rudimentary sourcing, which Ramayana#Characters does not have. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ramayana#Characters per nom, per WP:CFORK. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:47, 6 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 Second Johnson ministry. Opinion is split between keep, merge and delete. I see consensus not to keep this article, but no consensus about whether to merge something somewhere or just delete. The redirect is a compromise, allowing editors to figure out whether something should be merged. If nothing sticks in any target article, the redirect should be nominated for deletion. Sandstein 11:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sabisky[edit]

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

Pure WP:BLP1E, plus WP:NOTNEWS etc. Yes, there is no shortage of reliable news sources that mention Sabisky given his recent statements but there is nothing to suggest he will attain any lasting notability (and quite a lot of reason to think he won't...). Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom but merge key details to Second Johnson ministry for employing this loser. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Whether he remains notable in the long term is yet to be established, but he is currently the subject of front page news throughout the UK media, and also seems to have reached the attention of CNN. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that is precisely why we have policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Hug^syrup 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge what can be merged into Second Johnson ministry per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he proves to be a significant figure, he will have an article here. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this man (whatever one might think of him!) is important. 31.48.111.123 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. That isn't a sufficient justification to keep the article. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUSTAINED. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a speaker at the 2015 London Conference on Intelligence, which is sufficiently important to have its own Wikipedia page (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:INHERITED. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook case of WP:BLP1E. He didn't come to the attention of the media before this week, and now he's resigned after a few days of coverage, he may not again. Should only be recreated if he achieves more lasting notability in future. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly true - an old appearance of his on the BBC's Politics Live is one of the clips that the current coverage keeps reshowing. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Sabisky Affair" (or something similar). Per WP:BLP1E I agree that the subject does not merit a biographical article. However the controversy over his appointment to the inner circle around Prime Minister Boris Johnson and then subsequent sacking/resignation has been a significant political event in the UK and does merit its own article. Oska (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT (note especially number 4) not all widely-reported events should have standalone articles. If this event is still the subject of significant analysis and coverage in the future (which honestly seems unlikely) then an article can be created at that time. Otherwise, it is exactly the kind of interesting but ultimately insignificant story that gathers a lot of press attention and then is rapidly forgotten. There are no shortage of those in the modern news cycle and to give each one an ‘XYZ affair’ article is both absurd and contrary to our policy on notability of events. Hug^syrup 07:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your referencing point 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT is wide of the mark. This is not a routine story. Having someone who holds such extreme, highly controversial and generally socially unacceptable views on women, race, welfare recipients etc be appointed to an advisory position close to the Prime Minister is not routine. Having people within his own party and the government publicly condemning the appointment and say they will refuse to take part in meetings where Sabisky would be present is not routine. I agree that "Sabisky Affair" is probably not the best name for the article but I continue to maintain that this political event satisfies notability and significance criteria. Perhaps we could simply call the article ""Andrew Sabisky appointment". If we do not do a Move (and so far I am the only one talking about such a resolution) then I would support a Merge of the material to a relevant article with a Redirect from "Andrew Sabisky". Oska (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and Merge~~ ~~anything worth keeping to Second Johnson ministry~~ per nom. No one had heard of him before yesterday and he will disappear again by tomorrow. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article about Andrew Sabisky being considered for deletion? Who first suggested it for such consideration? It is up to the man himself whether he deletes his controversial Reddit posts or his Twitter account - although both forums might retrospectively consider whether any of his controversial statements contravened their own rules - but he was appointed to public office, and his removal from that office is also a matter of public interest. Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson, and, by association, the Conservative Party, have to justify their decision ever to appoint him, even if they have now bowed to public outrage. In my opinion, the article about him and this recent appointment and removal should stand on the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA8F:AB00:B8B4:83C3:46C4:F41C (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you scroll up the page before typing? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2020

Material in the article should be retained - the easiest way to do that is to keep the article. Perhaps it could be subsumed under an article about Cummings. John Gibbons 3 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep as it meets WP:GNG, even though he was in his role for a relatively short time...and there's more than enough media coverage on the subject. This is Paul (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned WP:SUSTAINED above, which qualifies GNG and says the opposite. A battery of guidelines have been quoted on this page in support of the idea that "current affairs" are not necessarily Wikipedia's affairs. We do not have to cover every OMG moment. Really, those guidelines are there for a good reason. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth considering that he was an office holder at national level, albeit briefly. This is Paul (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFICEHOLDER doesn't apply here. That refers to elected officials. And anyway being an elected politician does not in and of itself confer notability. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is not, because he was not. Political advisers are not officeholders. Hug^syrup 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Boris Johnson ministry per above. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The massive burst of publicity will die down, but is likely to keep him sufficiently notable into the future. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if it does, the article can be recreated with whatever might make him notable in the future. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or we keep the article and get on with more useful things. Well, I could anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on subjects that may become notable in the future. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Johnson ministry. Agree that the article should not be retained in present form, being that it does smack of WP:NOTNEWS; I do not think that WP:BLP1E applies here because the subject was mentioned in connection with more than just one event. Merging would also keep him listed at London Conference on Intelligence as a redirect, a good compromise between retention and outright deletion, due to the WP:SIGCOV surrounding him. StonyBrook (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I see nothing here that goes beyond the "one event" of the current shitstorm. Neither his role on the Johnson staff nor his participation in that conference would be anywhere near making him notable in themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a background advisor, not someone in a role that actually establishes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS without prejudice to recreation should sustained coverage of the subject occur in the future. --RaviC (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a clearer consensus can be reached. BD2412 T 05:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Robofish. Sphinctor (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Sock !vote removed.[reply]
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Second Johnson ministry and merge any useful content there per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. b uidhe 07:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and lasting coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom, and/or Merge (added see comments.) The job is gone (any secondary mentioning is still related to the position) and there is no sustained notability for more than a pseudo biography or newspaper article. Also, I don't think WP:EVENTCRIT is "wide of the mark". The "shock" of any bigotry of the subject, especially considering the likely forced resignation, will only have any sustained notability if the issues are further advanced according to the inclusion criteria #2 and #4. Otr500 (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Second Johnson ministry; previously I did suggest keeping this but the news cycle has moved on to fresh concerns. This is Paul (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have added agreement to possible Merge. The valid "keep" votes seem to have stabilized so far at four and delete and merge both indicate a strong consensus that the article does not deserve stand alone status. It seems Second Johnson ministry would be an acceptable compromise. Otr500 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E with no prejudice to re-creation. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:48, 6 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 no consensus. There doesn't appear to be a consensus here, just two sides in disagreement. Not sure additional relisting would help in this instance. KaisaL (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons (Pern)[edit]

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

Fictional topic that fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Dragons are central to Anne McCaffrey's work, and any discussion of her writing will naturally examine dragons as symbols within the narrative. For example:

"The telepathic communication between dragon and rider can be seen as feminine language. Some feminist critics see language itself as masculinized. They argue that our very ideas and thoughts are structured by the male-dominated words we use. McCaffrey offers telepathy as an alternative to traditional language... In Dragonflight, telepathic communication provides an instantaneous level of trust and love between dragon and rider... That it is female characters who have this power in the greatest degree stresses its femininity. Dragonflight offers a subtle analysis of the gendering of language."

That quote is from Anne McCaffrey: A Critical Companion by Robin Roberts, Greenwood Press (1996). Here are some more sources that talk about McCaffrey's dragons:

- Of Modern Dragons and Other Essays on Genre Fiction by John Lennard, Humanities-Ebooks (2008)
- Dragonholder: The Life and Dreams (So Far) of Anne McCaffrey by Todd McCaffrey, Open Road Media (2014)
- The Dragonlover's Guide to Pern by Jody Lynn Nye, Random House (1997)
- Magill's Guide to Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature: The absolute at large ed by T.A. Schippey, Salem Press (1996)
- Dragons of Fantasy: The Scaly Villians & Heroes of Tolkien, Rowling, Mccaffrey, Pratchett & Other Fantasy Greats! by Anne C. Petty, Cold Spring Press (2004)

WP:NEXIST says that the topic is notable if reliable sources exist, even if they're not currently in the article. WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article's content doesn't affect the topic's notability -- there isn't a lot of real-world content on the page right now, but that makes it an incomplete page, not a non-notable topic. I'll post these sources on the page as a "Further reading" section, so that people who want to improve the article can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half the sources seem irrelevant, and the other half belong in the main article. TTN (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely crucial per the conversation raised by Toughpigs. This are fundamental concepts within the series, and are the center of the books as works -- there is probably a ton of work to do around cleaning up the article and making it manageable, but you don't just kill obviously notable stuff. Sadads (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in two references to the article, once I believe may count as significant coverage in a reliable source. Just search for "dragon" "pern" and telepathy, fire, mating, or any other such things to find more reliable sources to add and check for coverage. I agree they are a notable part of the bestselling book series, and best to just have that information in one place, instead of duplicated in so many book articles. Too much information to be in Dragonriders of Pern so a valid spinout article. Dream Focus 00:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources listed in article or in the discussion above are unfortunately mentions in passing/WP:PLOT. All the arguments focus on in-universe notability. It does not matter for us how important dragons are to the Pern-verse (and yes, they are a key element of it, so what). What matters for us if real world notability, and nobody has shown that the dragons of Pern have been analyzed in a scholarly fashion or such. Please don't just WP:GOOGLEHIT us with random works that appear for "dragon+Pern" search and provide information, with quotes or such, on which sources actually discuss the subject in-depth and not just as a plot summary for the novel(s).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph I quoted above looks at McCaffrey's dragons through the lens of feminist literary theory. That is exactly the kind of in-depth source that you're asking for. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hard-to-read INUNIVERSE mess (geneticist Kitti Ping Yung is fictional, right?), consisting of mostly PLOT, with OR sprinkled in. Bits of the present material indicate that Sexuality in Dragonriders of Pern might be a relevant topic, but we'd still be left with sourcing problems, so I'd argue for WP:TNT here. On the other hand, if someone can wanted to have a dig at incorporating material into Dragonriders of Pern or Characters in Dragonriders of Pern and source it, I wouldn't be opposed. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a consensus will arise. BD2412 T 05:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT as an WP:ALLPLOT, crufty article that belongs in FANDOM. No prejudice towards the creation of a new article that is fully backed up by sources cited in this AfD._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being poorly written is not a criteria for deletion. Sources exist. That they are not currently used in tbe article is not a criteria for deletion. Perhaps the problem is that the author is a woman, creates science fiction with strong female characters, and the largely male editorship of Wikipedia is not aware of the impact of her work? As her biographer says, "In making dragons, which had heretofore been featured primarily as evil beasts, into attractive companions, Anne reshaped our cultural image of them. Significantly she did so in a structure in which queen dragons were the species' leaders."^[1] StarryGrandma (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for this being explored in a future article, but this current one is unsalvageable. It would be better per WP:REDLINK to delete it so that there is space for someone to write an article on the topic that is not entirely WP:OR._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The biographer is just using the dragons as an example to prove how McCaffrey is a good writer. It doesn't suggest WP:SIGCOV of the dragons. Bait30 ^Talk? 23:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Robin Roberts (2009). Anne McCaffrey: A Life with Dragons. University Press of Mississippi. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-60473-299-3.

Keep per available sources, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRUFT: as Piotrus mentioned, the sources do not appear to be WP:SIGCOV. Even if they were significant coverage, I would still recommend deletion per WP:TNT. Bait30 ^Talk? 23:38, 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 Merge. Per Option 2, merge the other three lists into List of largest cities. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities[edit]

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

Per WP:CONTENTFORK, this list-article merely duplicates List of cities proper by population, List of urban areas by population, List of metropolitan areas by population. And it is quite difficult to maintain the page since everybody wants their beloved cities to be listed. My proposal is:

Option 1: Delete List of largest cities, and keep the contents separated to all the other three lists; or
Option 2: Merge List of cities proper by population, List of urban areas by population, List of metropolitan areas by population into a comprehensive List of largest cities.

Bluesatellite (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of largest cities as all of them define the cities by their populations. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content overlaps well enough that it does not make sense to have it in four separate articles. Would be much easier to maintain and keep consistent while providing readers with all relevant information in a consolidated manner. It should include population densities. Reywas92^Talk 05:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population density could only be possible for city proper definition as both urban and metro areas are arbitrarily defined, and so have no fixed area from which to derive the density. Mattximus (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm undecided as to what way this should go, but as long as it includes the population and size of each city proper and metropolitan area, I'll be happy. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Given that the metro, urban and city proper populations are just different aspects of the same concept, and we have the ability to make sortable lists, having them all here makes sense. That also alleviates the perennial "why is Chongqing number one" question. This list needs a major overhaul though, it is astounding that major cities like Berlin and Chicago were missing for so long. — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This would solve the questions about why is Sydney not on this list, and why is Chongqing so high... and also focus all eyes on one list to keep it more accurate and up to date. Do you think the new list should be "List of largest cities by population"? Mattximus (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is easier to maintain one list than four. And ideally the list to be generated automatically from WikiData.Jklamo (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There are many different ways to measure how big a city is (usually population, not area) such as the population within the city's borders or the metro area. All of this can be discussed in one article, not separate articles. Interstellarity (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 I think it would be better of to have three lists, they are all three seperate concepts and then list of largest cities would just be a disambiguation page. Eopsid (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are 3 definitions for what is a city. There is a problem with 3 lists: for the city proper, there is a constant stream of people changing the list, or asking why places like Sydney are not on there. Or why is Chongqing so high? With multiple definitions for what a city is on one page (and the UN uses 3 different definitions), you have far less confusion and inappropriate editing. Also more eyes on one page, rather than divided into 3 helps with maintaining quality. Mattximus (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a full week since I open this discussion. I think I agree with most of fellow editors that the option 2 or merge is the better choice for these lists. I've just tried to clean up and update List of largest cities, adding the land size of city proper, metropolitan area, and urban area, as per Morriswa suggestion above. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nom withdrawal, no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 11:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Kobayashi[edit]

Withdraw from nominator. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is a kickboxer. Source provided are routine coverage and subject fails WP:NKICK and GNE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My lack of Japanese skills is a problem in trying to verify this article meets WP:GNG or find a reliable source that says he won the WKA world championship in 2000. However, I did find sources that said he did win that title, which would meet WP:NKICK since 2000 is the last year a WKA title would meet the kickboxing notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa Kindly provide source indicate and place on the article so I may withdraw the nomination. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CASSIOPEIA I have added 3 sources to the article that are in English. I can't be sure any of them truly qualify as reliable sources on their own, but I think combined they make a good case. I'm sure someone fluent in Japanese would be able to find more. Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa Thank you for adding the sources Papaursa. Whoever read this AfD and understand Japanese, and if possible, pls add Japanese sources into the article. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:50, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soo Line 700[edit]

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

Article uses few sources, only historical significance is that it’s soo lines first GP30 CZ3699 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have added 2 sources and invite other editors if they can find press sources and add them into the article since the subject is before internet era. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reasons as when I de-PRODed it: the locomotive is in the collection of a respected museum; the type of locomotive is over 50 years old, and few unmodified examples are still in service; the article has existed for over 5 years; and has been assessed as C-class. I have also expanded the references. — Iain Bell (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing as with the NP SD45, well respected museum is just a opinion, so that isn’t really a good reason to keep this article. There is no source stating the few un modified examples remain. Also just because the article has been on wiki for 5 years doesn’t mean it’s automatically good CZ3699 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has adequate sourcing for its size and has a decent history behind it. It also had been featured in a museum just as Bell said. I do not see any policy that this article is violated. Also, per WP:OTHER, check out Category:Individual locomotives of the United States. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:52, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Pacific 3617[edit]

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

Page relies on few sources, this engine also has no historical significance CZ3699 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as when I de-PRODed this: Locomotive is in the collection of a respected museum; the type of locomotive is about 50 years old, and few unmodified examples are still in service; the article has existed for over 4 years; and has been assessed as C-class. Note that the EMD SD45 only list 7 out of 1260 as preserved – that's 0.55%. I have also added a reference. — Iain Bell (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well respected museum is just a opinion, so that isn’t really a good reason to keep this article. Also the preservation section doesn’t count for engines still in service (still plenty.) Also just because the article has been on wiki for 4 years doesn’t mean it’s automatically good CZ3699 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has adequate sourcing for its size, including an additional one I found [25]. It also had been featured in a museum just as Bell said. I do not see any policy that this article is violated. Also, per WP:OTHER, check out Category:Individual locomotives of the United States. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:42, 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 redirect to Toilet seat#Modern design, electronic integration, and function. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic self-clean toilet seat[edit]

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

No need for a separate article. Fails guidelines. Störm (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toilet seat. Doesn't have enough notability for a content fork, and there' no point in merging the content since none of it is cited. Is a verifiable thing, though. Hog Farm (talk) 21:14, 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, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toilet seat#Modern design, electronic integration, and function, which would make more sense than having its own page. Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:57, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Christopher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previously deleted AfD Here. High school basketball player with some buzz about him but mostly routine outside of having a notable sibling (which some of the citations reference. For this individual, it is WP:TOOSOON and currently Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Fails WP:ATHLETE WP:NCOLLATH. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the creator of the article. Christopher passes WP:GNG with feature stories from the national publications Sports Illustrated and Bleacher Report (both published since the first AfD was closed), as well as significant coverage in articles by various California newspapers and recruiting websites. Although many of the sources do mention his siblings, Christopher is clearly the focus of these articles. Sportzeditz (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fails the basketball SNG but passes GNG. Has a Sports Illustrated piece written specifically about him, Bleacher Report did a write-up on him, and while the LA Times article is from the local area of the subject, it's still a very major newspaper, so getting an article in there means something. Subjects can be a WP:NBASKETBALL fail and still pass GNG in rare cases. For instance, Zion Williamson was GNG-notable before he ever graduated high school. Hog Farm (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The SI article does talk about him, rightly so as a highly recruited college prospect, but the main subject of that article is the basketball family (i.e his notable siblings). Even the title speaks to that- Family Tree Is Paving the Way for Success. As I said in the opening, he fails GNG for now... WP:SPORTBASIC is also pretty clear on the issue. WP:NBASKETBALL and actually the other Professional sports people guidelines are also clear that this subject has not competed at the highest amateur level (Olympics), been a top draft pick, played in the top pro-league (auto notable), or broke elite amateur records such as Olympic or NCAA D1 records. The coverage of a college prospects falls into trivial and more concerning for WP:BLPs, the problem with coverage of college prospects, is that it goes into WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL because the entire premise of the WP:Routine coverage is speculative on their future basketball careers. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: His only notable sibling is his brother, who is mentioned in many sources but is not the focus of them. Most, if not all, of the cited sources focus on Christopher. The criteria you mentioned do not apply if the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The criteria I mentioned help support WP:GNG (or lack of). He fails GNG and the others for now. Sources that could qualify as significant coverage are the Sports Illustrated and Bleacher Report articles but those largely focus on his future prospective in the context of a basketball family, including his notable sibling(s). Other sources in the article can support GNG but not establish it on their own. Those are 1) routine and local coverage 2) collegiate recruiting news niche sources. He currently fails the major GNG criteria of "significant". Also being in the heart of CBB recruiting cycle, GNG guidelines make clear that the subject for a stand alone article should be WP:SUSTAINED as well as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS- i.e. Wikipedia is not a college sports prospect tracker. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wasn't sure that the article passed GNG during the last deletion debate. Now I think he does, as a top high school recruit. There are plenty of sources on him specifically. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The LA Times article (which is hardly routine local coverage given that the LA metropolitan area is about 10 million people) and the SI article (which is primarily about him) touch the minimum GNG guidelines of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The additional coverage (Desert Sun, Bleacher Report) make this a clear GNG pass. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooha (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced film that failes to establish why it is notable. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability under WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:41, 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. Total keep consensus and multiple sources found. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

En Kadhal Kanmani[edit]

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

Undersourced film that fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it was a significant film in the career of a notable artist being Vikram's debut film, as per WP:NFILM#Inclusionary criteria imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:NFILM. It is Vikram's debut film. Please see, this, this, this and this. I think the AfD needs non admin closure now.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Widow Games. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They Hunger[edit]

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

This single article is the only notable coverage of the mod in reliable sources, but that is not enough to indicate it passes GNG or has WP:SIGCOV. The mod fails GNG with only passing mentions elsewhere. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's might be sufficient sources to support some article on some variant of the game, maybe specifically They Hunger: Lost Souls. GamesRadar on Lost Souls (announcement?), Shacknews preview of Lost Souls, Shacknews again on Lost Souls, IGN on Lost Souls announcement, VentureBeat on the series as a whole, IGN on the original, and I see several others in VG/SE. ~~I tend toward a keep here.~~ --Izno (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually saw the Venturebeat article, but it's written by a contributor and not the site itself. The others are not WP:SIGCOV and are just announcements/press releases... not exactly the kind of notability bar that is currently on Wikipedia, though it may have been sufficient back in pre-2010 era._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being at work makes it hard to assess that kind of stuff. Thanks website blockers. :^) --Izno (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My gut tells me there ought to be more, as I remember this being popular when it came out years ago, but being able to search Google news and books, just not finding much detail on it. If anything, this, along with the USS Darkstar could be discussed more at Black Widow Games (Which appears to be a notable target?) and of course listed on the List of Source mods. --Masem (t) 17:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'll support a redirect and some selective merge. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A glance at the sources for Black Widow Games and I'm not getting much indication of notability there either. They appear to be mostly press releases and/or news about other games that so happen to mention them as the developers, nothing indicating WP:SIGCOV or passing WP:NCORP._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think between this topic, the game shop, and the creator (Neil Manke), there's room for an article. Probably just one though from what I am seeing. --Izno (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Black Widow Games. The coverage is not enough to warrant an article of its own. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratical high school[edit]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. It currently contains zero sources, it doesn't look like it meets GNG. I did a quick BEFORE but I couldn't find any good sources, and articles on Google. Also the current text read like promotional. I'd note that it was draftified before by another NPP but the original creator created it the mainspace again with no improvements. Masum Reza^📞 22:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 22:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Masum Reza^📞 22:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Moved. Since the nomination, the author of the article has moved it from Pratical high school to Practical high school, and I have moved it further to the correctly capitalised Practical High School (as recommended below by Bearian (talk · contribs)). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. This is the only source I could find: [26]. Functional toilets! But otherwise, absolutely no notability. Ajf773 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find any secondary sources for the school. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hope that the article's claim that this high school with 750 students has only 104 books in its library is an error. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I seriously could not care less. Masum Reza^📞 03:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The school, mentioned in my article is too old or one of the oldest school that serves education in rural area of siwan district. I also added some citations or refrances to my article and also school code, U-DISE (Unified District Information System for Education) code which is created by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, Bihar. also you may check it's existence on Bihar Goverment official website by using school/college name as Practical High School and college code as 92096. On http://biharboardonline.bihar.gov.in/school-college-directory.Sturdyankit (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturdyankit (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has potential. It is a tidy article. I can't see how the current text read like promotional, it reads like an inexperienced editor who hasn't yet mastered our expectations. The school now has sources, and we now have a local editor who is responding to our comments. For GNG we have to show that sources exist - so we will always have problems with Hindi medium rural schools but if we have the school number and the examboard number (we now do) we know that sources and local press reports will exist. No bureaucrat on earth can resist bragging or using the press to head off criticism. So how do we improve it, that is not our job- how do we help the local editor to improve it, that is our job. How - we talk not threaten. So Sturdyankit Thank you for your effort so far. We are trying to establish WikiNotability. Can you list here 3 newspapers (in English or Hindi) where the school is mentioned. Usually it will be an article about good exam results, or bad exam results. The school has no running water. Is there a council paper, or newspaper talking about when water will arrive. Now some general questions, what is a government school building- how long is it, who high is it and is there a book that will tell us this. What do the students study? Are they poor and receiving state aid- what percentage and where is that printed. Where do the students go when they finish? Which college? Does the school follow a state program of study or follow one that is adapted- that can be discussed. All this important as it will help other Wikipedia editors to understand not just this school but other rural Indian Schools. ClemRutter (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has potential isn't a good enough reason to keep in my opinion. The author has added a number of sources (in fact only three, repeated across the article) but I still cannot see any evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's not a valid and an argument to avoid. @ClemRutter: Please provide proof that multiple independent sources exists that discuss the subject in an in-depth manner (per GNG). I have yet to find any that establishes notability. If the editor wants to work on it, I suggest we draftify it. Also salt the page in mainspace as it appears that the editor in question has moved it back to mainspace without any improvements made. It is NOT ready for mainspace yet. It should go through WP:AFC process. Masum Reza^📞 02:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't planned to spend my Sunday morning arguing about the number of angels you can fit on a pinhead, because WP:AGF is fundamental to Wikipedia. WP:WPSCHOOLS exist to try and improve the quality of schools articles and we welcome constructive edits. Including those on schools outside the White Middle Class Protestant English speaking world. Ajf773 your opinion is probably right if you look at it from the POV of a diligent editor, a native speaker who has spend four years mastering the plethora of policies essays and judgements. However it is not a POV will be understood by a second language speaker just starting out. Instead of trying to apply policies that clearly do not work very well, try to give some advice to help Sturdyankit write an acceptable article on a rural Indian school. We at English Wikipedia, have a problem with this word- notability. Notability means a fact that is worth noting, it is notable. In the wider word notable has the sense of 'over and above the ordinary'. This school is probably typical, not out of the ordinary - but as such will be notable.-

Falling back on relying on WP:GNG for schools was a big mistake- contaversial and by no mean convincing. WP:GNG is far less binary in what is required than deletionista imagine, WP:ORGIN only demands that the significant sources should exist if we look in the right place. Looking further down the page WP:FAILN give detailed processes to follow. 1. Ask for help in finding sources. 2. Look for a suitable merge. 3. Rescue the material and then delete the page. Yes I find a lot of it confusing and contradictory. Masumrezarock100 confusing and contradictory describes argument to avoid. There is a cultural difference in how we treat these discussion pages- between the absolutist, and the gnarled editor who treats it as a discussion that will lead to Quaker like concensus. Argument to avoid is a useful list, but as such it is an essay. The one I like most is WP:ASSERTN Example 1 which seems to describe the AfD!

Putting on my ESOL teacher hat, Draftify may be the a way forward but before you try to impose it you need to make sure that your principal editors understand what it is about- just doing it appears belligerent. The process could be explained on the associated talk page. Notability must be kept separate from the quality argument. This is no longer a stub- it is a start class and can be treated as such and any of us can do a ce. I have put some suggestions on how we can improve it, have you any more. ClemRutter (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some scholar students from this school who have got scholarship from Bihar State Shia Wakf Board in year 2010-11(2nd phase) you may check at http://www.technixindia.com/wakfboard/report-phase2-1011-result.php?page=24 using serial no. 116378-116379 they are Shamsha Khatun and Shaddam Hussain.Sturdyankit (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, But I don't think so my article is totally complete I have added valid references to this page. References are available. I didn't add them myself. This is I believe that my article doesn't have much references but not even less and it is because of its existence in rural area. My intention is to improve my article with updates as soon as possible rather than to be draftified. and it is truly ready for mainspace.Sturdyankit (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, thank you very much but as I mentioned earlier for rural schools/college(specially in India) it's become too tough to finding it's existence on any independent sources(even though it is notable) but inspite of that I mentioned some of them. And I'm also continued to searching of newspaper and docs. extracts about school But I request to keep it for now.Sturdyankit (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Struck out double vote by author.As, a user previously mentioned so I wanna clearify that my article is not a promotional article or anything else. i have created this because this school is one which was built in such a time when there in india existed British goverment and their rules, regulations. and school served education in hindi medium language including some of indian and british student too. actually, this is those type of facts which became vanished with time. For verifying its existence and notability i already have given some of official Bihar government and some independent citations or refrences. I did a lot of travels and meeting to collecting info. for my article, However, I found BSEB board results. But generally BSEB results are either in pdf or list form. You may check it on page 27/34 with serial no. 1046-1059 or roll no. 1400067-1400369. Using http://bcebcwelfare.bihar.gov.in/medhavritiPDF/Siwan.pdf

Dear ClemRutter Thank you very much. I do my best to add all of those things which you mentioned above and newspaper extracts as soon as possible. Actually the newspaper company and journalist doesn't print rural news(even results) in large columns they prefer short/ merged columns so I felt many difficulties but I continued to it. But for now I request to mr. Admin to keep my article and I approve it as soon as possible.Sturdyankit (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as discussed above, but move to Practical High School. 17:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC) -- Proceeding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk · contribs)

It's not called Practical High School. Try reading the (few) sources given. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the 3 sources in the article say that it is, as do the 2 links given above in the AFD, so it looks as if ref 1 (used again as 2, 6, 8, & 9) is the one with the wrong spelling. Although the editor got the spelling wrong in the article title, he got it right in the 2 images he uploaded to Commons.--David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wrong spelling is presumably the reason why the "Delete" !voters were struggling to find sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, Thank you very much for suggesting me I just check it on Bihar gov database i.e, [[27]] using name as practical high school with code 92096 and their it is named as you suggested Now, I moved this to practical high school.Sturdyankit (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Moved. Since the nomination, the author of the article has, as he says, moved it from Pratical high school to Practical high school, and I have moved it further to the correctly capitalised Practical High School (as recommended further above by Bearian (talk · contribs)). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - confused. I think I prefer the schools.org.in spelling, https://schools.org.in/siwan/10161003904/pratical-high-school.html a source. The 10161003904 is the UDISE Code. The Database page is national, where the chances are that the Exam Board page was written as a translation from a Hindi original and a typo crept in. ClemRutter (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Practical+High+School%22+Bihar gives 859 results; Google https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Pratical+High+School%22+Bihar gives only 145 results. The spelling would, of course, be academic if the decision ends up being to delete. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need significant coverage in reliable sources, currently it fails WP:GNG. The three "sources" currently in the article proves that the school exists but provides little additional information. As a result most of the article is unverifiable. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pax:Vobiscum's comments, I couldnt find anything better either. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturdyankit: The message from uninvolved editors is clear- they have looked for references to support the article and have failed to find anything on line. This is all about references. As a local editor you have access to sources that we haven't- the article has come a long way but the supporting references are not there- and there is still no evidence that any anything exist on paper, in libraries, council offices in council papers. Please can you search these out and tell us what they say. ClemRutter (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I pretty much see a delete consensus but going to relist to see if Clem's ping does any good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After searches by multiple editors, no one has been able to find any sources that satisfy GNG. Although unlikely, the article could always be recreated if someone is able to find the sources proving that. b uidhe 04:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ClemRutter thank you very much for your suggestions as you mentioned previously I just added some scholar students from this school who have got scholarship from Bihar State Shia Wakf Board in year 2010-11(2nd phase) you may check at http://www.technixindia.com/wakfboard/report-phase2-1011-result.php?page=24 using serial no. 116378-116379 they are Shamsha Khatun and Shaddam Hussain. and i'm also searching for other docs as you mentioned currently.Sturdyankit (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unfortunately it does not look like this is a notable school. I have not been able to find any sources to show notability, and if the best additions that local editors are able to make are mentions of scholarships, it's very unlikely that notability can be shown. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It's me sturdyankit (the author of this article), due to some family issue , for a short period of time I am unable to continue on my article. So, I request to Mr. Admin to drafting my article in order that I will work on after some time instead of deleting. Thank you - Sturdyankit (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this Rfc and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:28, 5 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 14:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Macdonald (scientist & author)[edit]

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

Highly promotional article that failed AfC as non-notable. Sources do not indicate notability, most of them are sources directly from the subject of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 01:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 01:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are there copyright issues here? having a look at the IMDB source (reference no. 7), this article is word for word the same. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has now been updated to include reputable sources - including popular podcasts, peer reviewed scientific papers, and film and tv credits. Please proceed with article submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybakerpoet (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The vast majority of references are articles and papers by him. I didn't find any independent coverage about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However accomplished an article subject may be, notability demands that we have works about the subject, not by the subject. There seems to be no such coverage of this person in either the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing substantial than promoting this subject. Should have speed-died under G11 of CSD. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:49, 6 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. I agree to keep the article according to the perspective of fellow Wikipedians. (non-admin closure) Abishe (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marching Thunder[edit]

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

The article doesn't cite reliable sufficient sources. Abishe (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not the current version of the article does a good enough job of citing reliable sources, a quick google search shows dozens of sources on this topic. Could the article be better? Sure. But notability seems pretty straightforward here, and the solution to imperfect articles about plainly notable topics is to improve them, not to delete them.TheOther Bob 05:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the current assistant director of athletic bands at Marshall University, I am slowly working to build this database of information that has been missing for several years. Pulling articles is going to take some time and I am working with the University's library to help supply source materials. Jesse Stevens 11:29, 26 February 2020
Keep as has reliable sources newspaper coverage such as the Herald Dispatch, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Mullin[edit]

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

Article subject is not covered by multiple reliable sources. Apart from the single interview used to source the article, there’s a single news piece from last year about a car crash. Does not pass WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources not found that establish GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source that is PR fluff from employer is not enough to establish notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single source of uncertain provenance is not sufficient, and searching does not bring up more. Fails GNG and no match to any WP:BIO set. SeoR (talk) 12:39, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 21:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyberchase episodes[edit]

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

I do not see how this list could meet the notability guidelines. None of the episodes listed there have their own articles, and the article is based primarily on unreliable or primary sources. Also, searching for sources found nothing useful. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is this different than any other TV episodes list? There must be thousands of pages like this one. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't. There is a growing trend with AfDs lately where the noms fail to realize that a sub-page of a notable article is inherently notable. If they even looked at the MoS, specially, MOS:TV, they'd see that a list of episodes belongs in the main article, but when it becomes too big it is split into a separate article. There is no need in either having the list itself be notable (which is a pretty bizarre ask, as that is almost never discussed by RS) or even having all episodes have article, or even one. If the series itself isn't notable, then nominate it, but as long as it is, then Keep this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSPLIT; this is a common type of page, and the nominator has not explained why this article should be an exception. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and WP:TROUT nominator for starting an AfD for one page (with little traffic) among countless others just like it, but not really per the arguments above – MOS:TVSPLIT almost seems to contradict that with "all articles must stand on their own", and is oddly silent on the notability of full-series episode lists. The correct argument here is that, contrary to popular misconception, notability is sometimes WP:INHERITED (that link itself provides several examples of such) and this is one of those cases: a TV series is the sum of its episodes and vice versa; therefore, it is logically impossible for one to be notable but not the other. Modernponderer (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all articles have to meet the notability guidelines. Especially not list articles. Its a spinoff article, content that wouldn't all fit easily in the main article is spun off to another article. Dream Focus 17:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists of episodes of notable TV series are generally seen as a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the main article once they reach a sufficient length. Rorshacma (talk) 01:59, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri[edit]

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

Not notable Islamic religious institution ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:29, 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable Deobandi madrasa ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now there are thousands of Madrasa not clear as to why this one is notable fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:11, 5 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. UserNumber, sources make for a good argument in AfDs, but only if you, y'know, actually cite them. Not if they only exist in your head. Sandstein 19:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar[edit]

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

Non notable Qawmi Madrasah located in Bangladesh ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found many significant sources UserNumber (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia[edit]

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

Non notable Qawmi Madrasah ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:29, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom[edit]

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

I think no scope to keep the non notable article. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article. I will challenge the notion that all madrasas are notable. I will equally challenge the idea that every Christian seminary is notable, and could find many that clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Tonga’uiha[edit]

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found nothing that indicates this player meets WP:GNG despite playing two seasons in Major League Rugby. This includes searches under Moni Tonga’uiha, Moni Tongauiha, and Tesimoni Tongauiha (which is the only name he gets any G-News hits and arguably should be the WP:COMMONNAME based off the player profile on the team page and that it gets the most hits on searches). What does show up is a few of WP:ROUTINE game reports, typical transaction WP:NOTNEWS announcements, and nothing of significant depth that isn't WP:PRIMARY.

It has been argued in the past that because Major League Rugby is possibly "fully professional" that it meets WP:NRU, but that has recently been contested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Major League Rugby and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Major League Rugby in that many of the less-than-superstar players get very minimal coverage (such as Tesimoni Tongauiha, in my analysis). Yosemiter (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has represented US in international competition and both America's Rugby News and DJ Coil appear to be RS. Passes WP:GNG (if only just). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet College Lahore[edit]

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

No coverage found for this private school. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:28, 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 Disambiguate. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Hitz[edit]

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

An article about the NHL Hitz series, which consists of a total of three games: NHL Hitz 2002 (2001), NHL Hitz 2003 (2002) and NHL Hitz Pro (2003). As a sports game series, they are not narratively connected and feature very similar gameplay. This article just retells what is already in the individual articles on the games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Given the size of the three articles, it ,might make sense to merge them all into this one. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what to do here. It's doing the navigational job to redirect the people to the proper game (and after deletion, there is no proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to redirect this to). But I am not sure that the series as whole received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG? Should this be treated as an elongated list article? I also oppose any merge, as all 3 games seem to pass WP:GNG effortlessly for their separate articles. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: If the series as a whole does not pass GNG, the article should be turned into a disambiguation page (with the history kept as it may be useful). Modernponderer (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a disambiguation article that points to the three games names in the nomination as WP:ATD. The current article is largely a compilation of the individual game articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per the excellent suggestion of Modernponderer and Eggishorn, which complies with WP:ATD and solves the main problem. Jovanmilic97 (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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MI Abdul Azeez[edit]

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

Non notable Jamaat-e-Islami Hind worker. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 10 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)} 20:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 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 merge to Pedro's Cup. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Pedros Cup Bydgoszcz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

2005 Pedros Cup Bydgoszcz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2006 Pedros Cup Bydgoszcz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2007 Pedros Cup Bydgoszcz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2008 Pedros Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2009 Pedros Cup Bydgoszcz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

These individual Pedro's Cups seem nowhere near important enough to need/warrant their own articles. Almost no info in them either. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pedro's Cup. Not individually notable meetings, but given only a couple of events are held each year this is a useful level of data to store at the main meeting page. Current article titles can be converted to redirects for ease of use. SFB 00:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pedro's Cup. Glendoremus (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Noel Murray[edit]

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

I think WP:BLP1E applies to this article. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP:LOWPROFILE. The article's subject is not notable outside of a singular event. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Involvment in lawsuit does not equal notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting notability; created 13 years ago when inclusion standards were not the same as they are now. Mattg82 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no lasting notability. This is an example of what happens when we create articles without considering long term importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, no lasting notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 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 Moved to Draft:Ekahau Site Survey, pending improvements sufficient to remedy the concerns raised in the discussion. BD2412 T 13:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ekahau Site Survey[edit]

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

Page reads like a commercial brochure. Also notability concerns. Oska (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify (modified as per end of this discussion) - Product only. Not notable. Could not find any WP:RS -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA I note the keep responses below, and reaffirm my view for delete. Widely known among professionals is not notability for Wikipedia. The software gets mentions, but these do not constitute coverage establishing notability of the software. I would invite those arguing for keep to present WP:THREE, that is the three best sources for establishing notability of this software. If there are three suitable sources, I would revisit my view above - but I cannot find any. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me give it a try.

In this short collection: Proceedings of international conferences (Intel and others), a book published by John Wiley & Sons, an article in a popular computer magazine, a MIT magazine publication, etc.

• The Twelfth International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications

• Modeling user movement habits for intelligent indoor tracking. In: Proc. of the 3rd Annual Intel European Research and Innovation Conference (ERIC-2010): Building a Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Society through Research and Innovation partnerships, Intel Ireland

• 9 free Windows apps that can solve Wi-Fi woes - Computerworld Magazine

• Technology Review: MIT's Magazine of Innovation, Volume 106, Issues 6-10

• Mobile Computing Deployment and Management

• Journal on Wireless Networks Communication

I hope you'll find at least some of these sources suitable enough. There are scores of other books and publications. WiFiEngineer (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WiFiEngineer. The idea of WP:THREE is to present your three best sources. If these establish notability, the matter is settled. You present six sources here, so I assumed the first three were your three best, and looked at these.

Ref 1, (Cullen et al., 2016) has: ", a survey of the indoor positioning capacity of the Wi-Fi infrastructure of the LyIT campus was undertaken. The Ekahau Site Survey (ESS) [8] application was used to complete the survey. ESS is the industry standard for designing, planning and maintaining Wi-Fi network systems". This evidences that ESS is an industry standard, but the ref is not specifically about ESS, it is about indoor positioning using cooperative techniques. ESS is used because it is an industry standard but there is no discussion of why ESS is that standard. Nevertheless there is this paragraph that points to something specific about ESS: "An interesting facet of the ESS application is its ability to configure the output to measure Wi-Fi connectivity capacity of a given area, with a given infrastructure, while at the same time measure the infrastructures capability to position devices within that same surveyed area."

All in all, I find this reference is reasonable, but does not establish notability on its own. Using the software because it is widely used and has a nice feature is not itself notability, nor is mention in a paper. It is relevant, however, that the researchers wrote the above about it.

Ref 2 is a poster presentation, "Predictive Indoor Tracking by the Probabilistic Modelling of Human Movement Habits." ESS is merely mentioned as being the software used. What the software provides is described, but this does not establish notability.

Ref 3 is a Computer world article about Heatmapper, and ESS is mentioned as being the full featured pay-for version of Heatmapper. This is a secondary source (which is good) and describes Heatmapper. By extension it provides some support to the notability of ESS, but the mention is brief, and this article is about Heatmapper, not ESS. Wikipedia has no page for Heatmapper, but it is mentioned on the ESS page. If this is one of the best three sources, I am still concerned that it is not really about ESS at all, which does not speak to its notability.

In summary, I am not convinced by these three refs that the software is notable, yet I think it does move us forward. Question: Is there a page that this page could be merged with? Perhaps Wireless site survey? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Sirfurboy. Regarding "I assumed the first three were your three best", no, there was no particular order, sorry.

I'm by no means an experienced WP editor, so the logic behind ranking the references it terms of their usefulness for this particular purpose often evades me. This is why I listed more than three references, hoping that you could take a look at all of them and point me to the good ones. Would you mind looking at Ref 5 and Ref 6? As for your question about merging, I tried that many years ago, and my attempt was not received very well. Something like "WP is not a shopping directory, get out of here." Frankly, I wasn't (and I'm not now) prepared for a lengthy discussion or, heaven forbid, an edit war if I tried that again. I simply created a stand-alone page for Ekahau, as well as summarized the characteristics of the leading Wi-Fi survey tools in a table (and try to keep it up-to-date).WiFiEngineer (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 is an edition of MIT's Technology Review, which would be a good source, but it is dependent on what it says. What this one tells us about is the company, Ekahau, produce an indoor site survey product, one of three listed companies providing this. Again, we have evidence here that people use the software and recommend it, but there is nothing here that makes it notable. The Symbols technology product does not get a page on Wikipedia, and although that argument is WP:OTHER, and so flawed, it does lead to another observation: Symbol technologies the company does get a page. Would a solution here be to rename the page to Ekahau the company, and have the product as a section of that? Is this the company's only product? Or is the company notable for other reasons? I have not researched the company as a whole at all, but if the company is notable, all this information fits nicely on their page.

Ref 5 is a book describing how to do site surveys and takes the reader through installation and use of Heatmapper. As above, Heatmapper is not ESS, although it is related. The book is essentially an instruction manual though. It is not showing notability so much as usefulness.

Ref 6 has some error in the URL. I cannot load it.

Again in summary, these have not established notability, yet I am not convinced we want to delete this information entirely. I think it should be merged or redirected somewhere. As the company page does not exist, we cannot merge or redirect to that, and I confess I do not know if "rename" is an appropriate AfD outcome. Instead I am going to modify my position to "draftify". In draft the page can be reworked/renamed as appropriate. Its sources can be improved or its content merged elsewhere. Information will not be lost, and writers will have more time to establish notability for the software. I hope that is a suitable compromise. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Ekahau has only one flagship line of business, and that's site survey applications and hardware (that includes Ekahau Pro, SideKick, Heatmapper, etc). So renaming the page to Ekahau (company) and correcting the contents accordingly sounds like a good solution to me. Draftifying, i.e. effectively removing the article from the user space, appears to be an overkill. The article is not *that* bad, and I'm sure it can be improved by the community, myself included. Time permitting, I'll easily add more references confirming the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiFiEngineer (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see zero concerns regarding notability here. It is, indeed, a widely known product among Wi-Fi professionals. If you ask them to name the leading product, Ekahau will be #1 or #2. As for reliable sources, click on the Google books and Google scholar links above. This will give you hundreds of sources, most of which would be quite reliable and vendor-neutral publications and books. I believe about half of the references for this article were added by me, and as someone who added them, I can tell you that these books are on my bookshelf and they are ABCs for any wireless specialist. Also, this page gets about 25 views every day, which, I guess, is a rare situation for a page that is allegedly not notable WiFiEngineer (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am seeing a notable company. There are many press releases as one would expect. The nominator states: Page reads like a commercial brochure, but I think that promotional language can be cleaned up WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, the article is for a software application, not a company, and so the notability question is about that application, not the company that makes it. Oska (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, notability isn't determined by asking some "professionals" what products they like. Nor is it determined by how many pages views an article gets. Second, press leases aren't reliable sources and that's all there seems to be on Google. Also, if the promotional language is cleaned up there probably won't be much of an article left. So the argument could be made for "delete and start over", but I'm going to leave that up to others to determine. Although, I will say the more the reasoning to keep it leans towards things like "It's notable because professionals say it is", the more I'm inclined to go with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, significant coverage exists.IceFishing (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't just require the existence of sources, it needs the right kind of sources. So what sources do you think are sufficient enough for it to be kept? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage is just press leases or trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong lack of WP:RS. Dorama285 03:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate the discussion above between WiFiEngineer (article creator) and Sirfurboy over potential sources to show notability. Particularly Sirfurboy in taking the time to review sources put forward by WiFiEngineer. I agree with Sirfurboy that these sources do not make a good case for notability and maintain my position that the article should be deleted. In regards to preserving the information in the article I would like to point out that WiFiEngineer has also created the article Comparison of wireless site survey applications and most of the information about this product is repeated there in a feature table format. Any relevant information that is in this article that isn't shown in that table could be added as a text entry for the product under the table (the same could also be done for other products shown in that table).

Wireless site survey is certainly a notable topic wikipedia should cover and we do. We then also link at the bottom of that article to the aforementioned Comparison of wireless site survey applications. I think this is the appropriate place for where a product of its stature should be documented (in a product comparison article thus giving more of a neutral point of view) and, to repeat, any information that has not been captured there about this product's features can be merged into that article and then this article deleted. Oska (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this product has mentions in Google Books[28] and Google Scholar[29] which should be evaluated as well. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343, come on, man, you've been here long enough to knows that WP:GHITS is a crap argument to make at AfD. Which of those mentions constitutes significant coverage? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos but as you know that WP:GHITS is an essey. Anyway the article has not been improved yet with any additional sources and as RoySmith found out those sources are WP:ROUTINE so, I am leaning towards a Delete. --KartikeyaS (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spot-checked a few of the sources; they're mostly routine coverage / product reviews in niche industry magazines, so fails WP:NCORP. The article itself has substantial copyright violations; clearing them would essentially require WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the !delete comments above, no independent secondary sources to convince me of notability. The article itself is a mess as well, lots of the (primary) sources aren’t even about this particular product but are WP:COATRACK for other products by the same company. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:22, 8 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. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne of Gotham[edit]

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

Fails WP:PLOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE BonkHindrance (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. According to policy, a book is notable if it's "been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself," including reviews. I just added two reviews to the article, from USA Today and Deseret News, reliable independent sources. I agree that the article has far too much plot description and not enough analysis or background, but WP:ARTN says that the topic's notability is not determined by the current quality of the article. It should be improved, not deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Toughpigs are enough to pass WP:NBOOK. AfD is not cleanup, which this article drastically needs. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NBOOK with independent reviews in reliable sources such as US Today and Deseret News which have been used to add content to the article so that deletion is no longer necessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY, it's been updated to satisfy WP:NBOOK indeed. Well done Toughpigs, and quite quickly. (To be a little more fair to the nominator, the reviews when nominated are dead sites that are definitely not up to the levels of the new adds. They're still available on web archives, but they look like blog posts. I can't see anything on to suggest sparknotes is actually a WP:RS, but critiques4geeks.com at least had an editorial team on their staff page.) Coming off that aside and back to the point, the two new reviews meet WP:NBOOK. Plot could definitely use some trimming. -2pou (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Kirkus also reviewed the book here: [30]
Keep per all the arguments so far -- seems to have passed. Sadads (talk) 16:53, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maid Maiden[edit]

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

I looked for sources and all I found were database entries and one paragraph of a news article, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. ミラ P 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG --BonkHindrance (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. lullabying (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:31, 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.

[1] "Alimony to women is not a welfare scheme but a right: Activists". Indian Express. 21 December 2010.

[2] "T'puram is Kerala's divorce capital too". News 18. Thiruvananthapuram. 2 March 2012.

[3] "School students in Thiruvananthapuram can now get sanitary napkins for free". edX. 16 July 2019.

[4] Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications. p. 185. ISBN 978-1-55250-551-9 – via International Development Research Centre.

[5] Kannan, K.P; Raveendran, G (October 2017). "Poverty, Women and Capability" (PDF). Laurie Baker Centre for Habitual Studies: 34.

[6] "സുശീലാഗോപാലന്‍ ജീവിതകഥ". keralabookstore.com.

[7] ttps://kswdc.org/board-of-directors/

[8] ttps://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapuram/Ex-MLA-appointed/article16076360.ece

[9] ttp://kudumbashree.org/storage/files/1yzdo_kshree%20full%20ms_kpkcorrected%20with%20cover_08.11.17-1.pdf

[10] ttps://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/sabarimala-contempt-petitions-in-sc-against-prevention-on-women-entry-1.3249159

[11] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/clashes-rock-kerala-day-after-women-enter-sabarimala-temple-250-injured-during-bandh/story-4TkIeRCihntNbPmoGVghQM.html

[Roberts2009-12] Robin Roberts (2009). Anne McCaffrey: A Life with Dragons. University Press of Mississippi. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-60473-299-3.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]