Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Keller[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions.

Non-notable cyclist, since he fails to meet any of the notability points. LegofanCy (talk) 23:58, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cyclist. I suspect we have articles on many such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the guidelines are a bit harsh right now actually, and that there are not a lot. Hermann is questionable but the majority on here are quite notable. Was my bad for creating this one.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for cyclists and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to General Conference on Weights and Measures. And International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Sandstein 15:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Committee for Weights and Measures[edit]

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

The article fails the notability test, particularly it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. All the references used in the article point to the organisation's own website. Neither a cleanup tag, nor a new talkpage section has stimulated any attempt to salvage the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with General Conference on Weights and Measures and International Bureau of Weights and Measures, not evident that this needs a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 04:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with General Conference on Weights and Measures and International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Basic facts about this executive committee of the General Conference are verifiable, but the committee itself seems not to have generated much independent coverage. The article fails GNG, but merge to General Conference on Weights and Measures, the conference that directs them, and International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the keeper of the standards they work on encouraging/enforcing at a national level, is a reasonable alternative to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. (non-admin closure) ~~ Alex Noble - talk 12:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vrock[edit]

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

Article on a playing piece from a game is sourced exclusively to the game's rule books, with the exception of "D&D for Dummies" which - while published independently - is authored by several of the game's designers. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources. A standard WP:BEFORE fails to discover WP:RS, with the exception of a plethora of purely incidental mentions on geekdad.com (if that's RS). Chetsford (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support lack of WP:RS coverage xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, wikipedia is not a game guide and this is not notable outside of the guide. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, redirects are cheap, it's a plausible search term with a good target, as there are already entries with the name there, basically this is WP:ATD-R territory. A very selective merge might be possible, but the list format doesn't allow for more than maybe a sentence. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters: Not notable outside the context of D&D, and I can't find any reliable sources to show that it's made its way into wider culture, but a redirect will serve curious readers who want to know what the term refers to. --Slashme (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Most Haunted#Former team members. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Felix[edit]

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

Non-notable person... article was apparently created as a self-promotional resume. References are press releases reported by local newspapers. They do not satisfy WP:RS. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I shalln't !vote as I must declare a WP:COI as I know this individual slightly from my time working at Derby Museum, and am well aware of what my professional colleagues thought of his reputation for historical accuracy! Brilliant at self-promoting Derby's history, he did become a minor personality on a paranormal TV programme. However I see little in the sources which show in depth coverage of the person, despite lots and lots of articles in which he appears. If the outcome were not to keep it, I might have thought that redirect to Most Haunted would certainly be more appropriate than any decision to simply delete. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect: Here is a less local source by BBC about (presumably) the subject: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35482708. While there might not be all that many reliable sources out there (based on my online search, anyway), he did appear in 119 episodes of Most Haunted. So, if the consensus seems to be that the subject doesn't pass the notability standards, I think redirecting to Most Haunted, as suggested by Nick Moyes, would be a viable option. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirect would be a perfect solution. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't have a problem with that, Catfish. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Most Haunted. Doesn't appear to be notable on his own, nearly all the coverage (including sources used to derive early life information) appears driven by his appearances on Most Haunted, which has its own page. It doesn't seem like there's enough independent coverage of just him to justify his own page, at present. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to Most Haunted#Former team members. Does not pass WP:BASIC, there's a fair quantity of hits but none of the coverage is significant/in-depth even the BBC reference is nothing more than casual, and certainly insufficient by itself. I think redirecting to the former member section makes more sense so searchers immediately see what they were looking for even though he is mentioned in other areas in the article. I don't see deletion as a huge negative since I strongly suspect the very next search made upon hitting that dead end would be for Most Haunted since that's what he is known for, but redirects are cheap, and it's a reasonable target, so by a narrow margin is preferred in this case. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Most Haunted#Former team members: not independently notable. --Slashme (talk) 09:04, 14 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 on the same basis as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 MotoGP season, but presumably this one will be ready for recreation sooner. RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 MotoGP season[edit]

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

Surely it is simply WP:TOOSOON for this? Details change in the couple years leading up to events like this, so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL too. Same goes for 2022 MotoGP season too. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article constitutes only a list of contracts which is insufficent per WP:NSEASONS, article therefore fails WP:SIGCOV.
SSSB (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the schedule is out...short of major calamity this season will happen right? Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, the problem is that there isn't really anything to say about it right now, and until the season starts (or just before), there won't be coverage to be able to make any prose. This will be an article eventually, but right now it fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. We could move it to draft, but drafts that aren't edited in 6 months are deleted by a bot anyway, and this will likely sit around for a lot longer than that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated when there are more sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 MotoGP season[edit]

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

Surely it is simply WP:TOOSOON for this? Details change in the couple years leading up to events like this, so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL too. Same goes for 2021 MotoGP season too. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article constitutes only a list of contracts which is insufficent per WP:NSEASONS, article therefore fails WP:SIGCOV.
SSSB (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one is a bit WP:TOOSOON. IMO two years out is one year too many. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:00, 9 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. Regarding the text, it could be provided, but for attribution purposes it would be better to restore the page temporarily and use Special:Export (if the requestor has, or knows someone who has, access to Special:Import on Fandom). RL0919 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of Shortland Street[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages, and deaths in Coronation Street (and subsequently four other similar articles) I proposed removing the list of births, marriages and deaths from this New Zealand soap article too. However it leaves me thinking that there would not be much left of value either, leaving only Cliffhangers article (which I'm also contemplating nominating) and storyline articles for every year from inception in 1992 up until 2013. I can't find any other examples of lists of storylines anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from a few deleted ones (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of storylines in Emmerdale. In summary the whole article aligns with WP:PLOT and WP:OR and is best served on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that Wikipedia is not the right place for this material. Carefully compiled but the OR nature of it is underlined by the article being entirely unreferenced. Schwede 66 18:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merit at all NealeFamily (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly fails our WP:CLN and WP:AOAL criteria for lists, categories, and navigation templates. To closing administrator, might you consider allowing the text of this content to be e-mailed on request at WP:REFUND? This might be useful content on Wikia/Fandom, etc., but we generally don't need a blow-by-blow (pun?) plot highlight synopsis of a New Zealand soap opera. Doug Mehus T·C 00:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Islamia Bhatkal[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist seminary located in Bhatkal. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources can still be found. No reason to delete. Interstellarity (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain which sources support notability of the seminary? ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per result of previous AfD. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was closed without further discussion and not that an evidence for notability and to keep an article. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authordom, Closed without discussion? There were 3 keep !votes. Per the sources identified in the last AfD. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three sources given already. Is this delete an example of Islamophobia? ClemRutter (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godavarthi Sri Ramulu[edit]

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

Sources fail GNG and I'm pretty sure "village president" fails NPOL. Before's not giving me anything that passes GNG. ミラ P 19:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The talk says The refernces to this article are not available online, coz in India only now a days we are getting stuff online. This is created in view of facts happened along with suggestions from local people residing there. Any positive suggestions are recommended. Also the user is currently verifying as to what proofs we can provide to get this published in wikipedia. Huge verification issues with that. ミラ P 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, as he has not won a major election. For a second, I thought this was B. Sriramulu, but that is a different person. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol Wars[edit]

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

Speedy deletion request by article creator per Talk page discussion, can be covered in other article(s). Whizz40 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may be premature. Discussion ongoing at Talk:Protocol Wars#Notability. ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature per discussions on article talk page. Looks like there’s an ongoing effort to demonstrate validity and notability, and cook up reliable sources. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by [1], [2], [3], [4]. Thank you Whizz40 for bringing these to our attention on Talk:Protocol Wars. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kvng comments. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kvng. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romir Goswami[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BlameRuiner, easy delete. SportingFlyer T·C 06:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Looks like a relist has finally gotten us somewhere. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 02:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Clawman[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. All the sources added after the removal of the PROD are extremely trivial coverage, some literally just her name and another only two sentences. These articles are talking about representation and using her as one of several examples. None talk about her in any critical capacity. These belong in an article talking about representation in comics, not shoved onto this page as if they talk about the character. The only source I cannot access is "Professors use comic books to teach about race," but, judging from non-specific context, that seems to have the same issue of her just being one of several characters talked about with zero commentary on the actual character. TTN (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the new sources to this article and indicated I would make efforts in the future to find additional sources and expand the article further, but the nominator immediately took it to AFD anyway, which didn't strike me as a good faith move. In any event, I think the sources already added go a long way toward indicating notability for this subject, and there are others out there that can and should allow for additional expansions. There is also some interesting commentary on this character regarding the overall representation of Aboriginals in comic books, so the coverage of this subject goes well beyond mere plot summary... — Hunter Kahn 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what you added, there is no particular commentary whatsoever. Using the character as one of several examples is not "significant coverage." TTN (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, you have made your opinion clear, and although I don't agree, I welcome hearing input from others. :) I will also attempt to continue expanding this if I'm able to within the timeframe of this AFD (which will be a bit of a challenge, hence why I sought more time in removing the PROD...) — Hunter Kahn 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Guardians. The sources regarding the character that are more than just pure plot summaries are either extremely passing (listing the character among many others as an example of something, with no actual discussion on her specifically), very brief (one of them has an entry on her that consist entirely of two sentences stating how obscure she is), or, most common, mentioning her in a discussion of the team/comic she belonged to. So, while she has no sources to indicate independent notability, a redirect to said team is logical. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that some of the non-plot elements are about the team, which is somewhat inevitable for an article about a character from a team like this, but most of that discussion is about her depiction as an Aboriginal in comic books, and what it says about the depiction of Aboriginals in general. That by definition is clearly about her and not the team (she is the only Aboriginal on the team) so I'd still argue it makes sense that content makes sense for her standalone article. — Hunter Kahn 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The few sources that talk about her specifically in the context of being an Aboriginal character in comic books fall into the first two categories I mentioned. None of them are in-depth at all, either just including her in a list of names, or have one-two sentences describing her. The article by Pearson devotes two sentences to her entry, and only one of those actually talk about her specifically. The article by Richards has one sentence on her, which is used to just mention how she is the "most obscure" aboriginal character. Both of the books by Frederick Aldama only mention her in the list of the members of her team. The article by Yunkaporta spends part of one sentence talking about her which is, again, used to mostly emphasize how obscure the character is. None of these incredibly brief descriptions could come close to supporting an independent article. And, as mentioned, since the remainder of the sources are either just plot summaries or discussions of the entire New Guardians team, a Redirect to the main topic is the most generous action to be taken here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't dispute that some of the mentions are brief, though in some of the cases you are describing it's a bit misleading to say that the commentary is limited to a handful of sentences where she is mentioned by name. For example, the Pearson article may only dedicate a couple of paragraphs to her specifically, but the article is also making an overall commentary about the general deception of Aboriginals in comic books, and he presents Betty Clawman as a part of that. So more of the article pertains to her than just the two paragraphs specifically about her. I'm sure I won't persuade you, but it's my view this article is already supported by reliable sources to establish notability (and again I'll stress, I don't believe these are the only sources that discuss her, but merely are the ones I was able to easily find with a quick search) and the article as it stands now include non-plot commentary that will be lost in the event of a redirect/merge, because the commentary on Aboriginals would not be relevant in a different article. — Hunter Kahn 00:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hunter Kahn's additions. The "Reception" article is now fleshed out with many RS references. I think splitting hairs over whether the RS called her "the most obscure" Aboriginal superhero is silly; being "the most obscure" is actually a distinction. She has been noticed, ergo she is notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the fact that the source called her obscure, its the fact that the entire coverage in the source is one sentence that calls her obscure. That is not "substantial coverage" as defined by the WP:GNG in any way, shape or form. And all of the added sources are just as insubstantial. I also want to point out that the added "reception" section is rather misinterpreting the coverage of the character. Several of the sources are, as I mentioned, talking about the team in general, but the reception section has been written in a way to make it sound like the coverage was specifically on this character. For example, Aldama does not call Betty Clawman specifically "interestingly fleshed out", as this article currently states. He talks about the entire team, lists the names of the members, and describes the entire team as a whole to be fleshed out. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In some instances, yes, the sources are talking about the character in the context of the team, but that doesn't mean they aren't talking about the character. It is still accurate to say the discussion is about her as well as the team, and some of the prose notes that this is the case. And there are other examples where the commentary is solely about her and not other team members; i.e., none of the other members are Aboriginals, so obviously that commentary is only related to her, and all of that would be lost in the event of a merge or redirect. — Hunter Kahn 21:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following up on my Keep vote. The book Multicultural Comics: From Zap to Blue Beetle ed. by Frederick Luis Aldama (University of Texas Press, 2010) says:

The 1980s and 1990s saw other notable superheroes of color arrive on the scene, including: Steve Englehart and Joe Staton's creating of a team of immortals called the Chosen, as part of their series Millennium, who are recruited to "advance the human race". The team includes, among others, an Australian aboriginal woman, Betty Clawman; a Maoist from mainland China, Xiang Po; an Inuit, Tom Kalmaku; and Afro-Caribbean Brit, Celia Windward; and Gregorio de la Vega, born and raised Peruvian.

Yes, the character's name is only mentioned once, but it's a paragraph that specifically says notable superheroes of color :) and presents her name as first on the list. People in academia who are studying the history and impact of multicultural characters in comic books consider Betty Clawman to be notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character being included in a laundry list of characters shows she's not particularly important on her own. If none of these sources take the time to actually discuss what makes the character important, then the character is just a small piece of the larger picture. If you want to make an article on the history of representation and diversity in comics, that'd be a great source. If you want to make an article on one of those five characters, it's not a great source. TTN (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with you, particularly your description of how the character is utilized in these sources. But as I said here, I am refraining from continuing a repetitive back-and-forth with you. We've each expressed our opinions and will have to agree to disagree with each other. — Hunter Kahn 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references provided are just enough to establish notability. Rhino131 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep per WP:HEY. This was nominated as editors were fixing the issues. AfD is not for normal editing issues. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability now established.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:09, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–Tonga relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. There are no embassies, agreements, state visits. Trade is a mere $13000 a year. Many companies trade that much in an hour LibStar (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All diplomatic relations between nations are valid and should not be compared to as a business. As such, when nations seek election for seat as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, countries seek each other's support as Mexico is doing now and received Tonga's support the last time it ran back in 2008.^[1] There's more than business involved. Bilateral agreements are just as important and both nations have discussed negotiating agreements.^[2]Aquintero82 (talk), 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://sre.gob.mx/images/stories/doctransparencia/rdc/6lbcsonu.pdf
^ https://www.senado.gob.mx/comisiones/relext_ap/docs/Dictamen_Nueva_Zelandia.pdf

I should also add a lack of third party sources cover this topic. The 2 you've stated above are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"both nations have discussed negotiating agreements" have they actually made any agreements? LibStar (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the minimal trade between both countries (just US$13K) is a good reason for deletion. These are two countries trading and I think diplomatic ties of this nature of notable for inclusion. I do agree we need better sources. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if they were significant trading partners that would add to their notability. LibStar (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are about 19,000 possible bilateral relationships between countries, and they are not automatically notable. They don't even have embassies in each other, and merely talking to each other or attending conferences is not a significant relationship. There aren't independent sources about this besides information from the ambassador to New Zealand also accredited there. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reywas92 makes a good point. There is nothing notable about this particular relationship. Lightburst (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Added additional information to the article with regards to Mexican cartels using Tonga. Aquintero82 (talk), 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added information is a random fact that Mexican cartels have used Tonga. None of the sources demonstrate how this "refers to the diplomatic relations between the United Mexican States and the Kingdom of Tonga." Reywas92^Talk 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Tried to clean irrelevant/off-topic info from the article[5] but was reverted.[6]Yilloslime (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree not every national relationship is de facto notable, but the article's sourced well enough that we don't need to delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 12:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aquintero82. Notability != importance. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I will once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head. The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic information about Mexico-Tonga relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Mexico and Tonga articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

simply copying and pasting the same argument without specific reference to the subject is boilerplate. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why you would expect other editors to put more effort into opposing the nom than you did in making it. -- Visviva (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visviva, I have to say, that is a remarkably unique interpretation of the meaning of the GNG. If failure to meet the GNG is not a suitable route for presumption of non-notability, what on earth is? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well said PMC. I'd be interested in Visviva's response. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd scarcely call it an interpretation, those are just the literal words of the guideline. In English, "if A then B" does not imply "if not A then not B". Pretty straightforward, and it's no coincidence that a biconditional wording has never gained consensus. (Of course, it would be a stretch to say that purely notability-based deletions have ever had consensus support outside of the dysfunctional and unrepresentative AfD community -- and this, again, is reflected in the actual words of WP:N, which purports to relate to the structuring rather than the scope of Wikipedia coverage -- but I'm straying from the topic here.) It seems to me that a valid reason for deletion would have to be based on the actual purpose of the Wikipedia project. Making real arguments takes real work, of course -- but fortunately, many common shorthand grounds for deletion are conveniently provided in WP:NOT. The kind of pseudo-legalistic reasoning that has come into vogue on AfD as a replacement for actual arguments is incredibly harmful to an open and collaborative project such as ours. -- Visviva (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added: of course, the great majority of invocations of the GNG in deletion discussions are harmless, because they merely stand as a shorthand for showing that the nom did their WP:BEFORE homework: "this article is unencyclopedic as it stands, and my research indicates that there are insufficient sources to support a standalone article on this topic." But when, as here, the nominated article is not facially unencyclopedic, that shorthand is no longer appropriate. -- Visviva (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Reywas92. Didn't we have some similar AfDs a few years back, whose general outcome was delete, except where reliable sources verified that the relationship was notable in some manner? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that this subject should not exist as a freestanding article, but also an equally clear consensus that discussion participants view merger as at least a permissible alternative. BD2412 T 20:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Horace Lamb Chair[edit]

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

Recently established professorship. A news release from the university is neither "sources" nor "independent of the subject". Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up to Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester (same should probably be done for the other 3 or so chair articles pointed to by this one). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems to me Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester is already fairly long.Billlion (talk)
Lol WP:LENGTH suggests a split at > 50 kB prose, and this has only about 8 kb of prose. A merge of all is absolutely feasible, though neither routine listings of faculty nor specific sources of funding are typically in university department articles. Reywas92^Talk 10:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be neither of these. Academic staff (which in US are called faculty) usually have a few notable members listed. Department typically have a tiny minority who are professors (mostly Lecturers). Most departments would have no named chairs at all. So named/endowed/Regius chairs are likely to be worth a mention. Routine sources of funding of course are not going to be that notable, but that would be research councils and industry typically. Endowments are actually very rare in the UK, even if perhaps they are common in the US, and they are usually associated with an interesting historical story. For example the Beyer Chair is linked to the history and development of science and industry in Manchester, and so to the Industrial Revolution that started there. That said there is now evidence presented this chair is endowed, and it also doesnt have much history yet!Billlion (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : First of all I think that named and endowed chairs are important, but the Beyer Chair, Fielden chair etc are long established with many highly notable holders, so there is no question in my mind that they deserve a Wikipedia page as much as for example the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. This one however is new, and has only one holder so far. On the other hand it is still a named chair and I wonder if there is notionally some thereshold at which a named chair becomes notable?. Regius chairs have a page and te older ones have articles. I would argue that the redlinked ones at Manchester Regius_Professor#University_of_Manchester probably deserve an article (the holders are of course also highly notable). Billlion (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I wonder if there is notionally some thereshold at which a named chair becomes notable?" Uhhhh, the same thing as most anything else: WP:NOTABILITY...not sure why it's a hard concept that something needs independent, significant sources to be notable. Don't play games, even this department's other chairs are sourced within U of Manchester and don't compare in the slightest to that held by Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking since the 1600s. Professorships are rarely discussed outside of their own institutions and don't WP:INHERIT notability from their holders. Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few articles about specific chairs that are quite simillar to eg Beyer Professor of Applied Mathematics, a random example Regius Professor of Forensic Medicine (Glasgow). Not a case to keep Horace Lamb, as on the evidence is not endowed and as said above has had only one holder. But in general I think long established endowed chairs with distinguished holders should be kept, and of course they appear in history books, archives, Whos Who, and papers that you would not expect to find via Google. I would be happy to see more, for example the Cavendish Chair of Physics at Leeds might be a good candidate. Billlion (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching found no sources that would allow this chair to pass WP:GNG or distinguish it any way among the many other endowed professorships at other institutions. It first and so far only holder, Oliver Jensen, passes WP:PROF#C5 for the chair, #C1 for well-cited works, and likely #C8 as editor of Mathematical Medicine and Biology, so if someone wants to create an article about him, we could redirect the chair title to it. Otherwise, it could be redirected to the article on the department (I would prefer not to propose this as a merge, however, as that would require the editors of the department article to determine whether the level of coverage of this chair is out of balance with the rest of the department article). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be recently established, but it is certain to continue, and it is also certain that every person who ever holds it will be notable in the WP sense, since holding achair such as this defines notability according to WP:PROF. So it's certainly expandable. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What an absurd circular argument: a professor, regardless of sources, can be automatically notable merely for holding a chair. The professorship, because its holders are automatically notable, automatically needs an article, regardless of sources. Expandable with WHAT? Merely that a new name would be added in the future? There are no independent sources on this! There are thousands and thousands of professorships that simply cannot perfunctorily have articles just because someone donated money to the school, despite the deficiency of coverage. NPROF applies to the people with a body of work and recognition beyond having an endowment pay their salary, not the chair itself. Reywas92^Talk 08:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if someone was appointed to a named chair and did not even meet the Wikipedia criterion for notability it would certainly be news worthy, and represent a scale of corruption and break down academic standards that would make the appointment of that person notable! The job description when the position is advertised goes well beyond NPROF. Billlion (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find an advert for the Horace Lamb chair but the person specification for teh recently advertised Beyer Chair is there

It is essential that you should

have a track record of research in applied mathematics of the very highest quality;
be, or have clearly demonstrated potential to become, recognised as a world-leading researcher in one or more areas of applied mathematics;
be able to provide inspirational leadership to colleagues and research students within the applicant’s area and the wider applied mathematics community;
have a genuine enthusiasm for, and a commitment to excellence in, teaching at both

undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It is desirable that you should

display clear evidence of eminence and reputation within the field, such as significant

prizes, fellowships of major national academies, or editorships of the most prestigious international journals;

have a sustained track record of excellent teaching;
have a sustained track record of obtaining funding to support research;
have demonstrated ability to develop and lead a successful research group; be able to serve as a role model to students and staff from a broad range of backgrounds.

so it seems to me that the appointment committee has already assessed the candidate against something more than NPORF.Billlion (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world makes you think a job listing defines notability? Does the concept of WP:INDEPENDENT sources evade you? Of course anyone can say "We only want to hire the very best!" Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A university is required to hire people against their job specification. They are required to use internal and external experts to determine if candidates meet those criteria. In a job advert they make such criteria a matter of public record. If it was a press release by a University PR officer I would agree they could (and do) say any sort of rubbish. But criteria for hiring named chairs appears in charter, statutes and ordnances. An appointment board hiring against this criteria is similar to for example a committee appointing someone to be a fellow of a learned society.Billlion (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester: there appears to be zero independent coverage of this, and the arguments for notability offered are totally unpersuasive. (If redirected, I would request that the closer leave a note on Talk:Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester inviting editors there to see if there is anything worth merging.) --JBL (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Goldsztajn's suggested target is better; the source currently in this article can be used there. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No independent sources, delete or redirect to Horace Lamb#Honours and awards where the Chair is already discussed. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:23, 14 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. Ever since relisting, everyone here have voted in favour of keep (7 votes for keep). The article us well developed and sourced ever dince nominating for deletion. I am pity happy with the article at the moment. (non-admin closure) Abishe (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary C. Crowley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and written in unclear tone. The article is also orphan. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is certainly NOT an "orphan." To start with, there is the son who inherited her fortune.IceFishing (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Home Interiors and Giftswhile there are a couple of secondary sources with significant coverage cited, it's not clear that they're reliable as they're published by advocacy groups without clear expert credentials. Moreover, all of the subject's notoriety would appear to arise from their founding of Home Interiors and Gifts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC) struck 18:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Home Interiors and Gifts has only one source. The sourcing for this article is also problematic. historyswomen.com is very questionable and reads more like a hagiography than a biography that we can use. drjamesdobson is an interview. https://www.worthpoint.com is useless, I've got the impression much of the information is actually based on her own books? The nyt arrticle could be used to beef up the article on the company. I do think both are notable, but a merge may be best, until we find more, and better, sources. Vexations (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree about the sources (have not looked at NYT or Dobson) and removed the Worthpoint (can't believe such a garbage source was included) and bloggy, saccharine, unsourced Historyswomen.com. Better sources mus tbe found.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the coverage of Crowley and the large, profitable company she founded and ran, she is discussed in books that come up searches, both her Christian piety and her business success can be sourced.IceFishing (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I dont see any RS on her specifically covering her as a subject worthy of chronicle? The refs quoted are either no RS (e.g. blogs), or are about a later sale of the comaany (NYT), but not her? Can't see a standalone BLP here. Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is, for example, this PhD dissertation: The leadership of Mary C. Crowley: Pioneer female business leader Carver, Rita M. Dallas Baptist University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2012. 3507449.IceFishing (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a funded piece by ber company from a lower tier university. No RS seems to want to cover her in any form. No WSJ, NYT, even regional news? Britishfinance (talk)

I'm less inclined to assume that the piece was funded in an underhanded manner, but a PhD dissertation is only as reliable as wherever it's been published; this book does not appear to have been professionally published. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an underhanded act per se - corporations fund/sponsor such pieces legitimately as part of their own corporate history development. Regardless, I agree that it is unsuitable. Britishfinance (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A PhD student choosing for the subject of his or her dissertation a figure in its university's past, including a donor, is hardly surprising, unethical, or otherwise problematic. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not." If it is a real dissertation that went through the IRB process, it should be in Proquest Theses and Dissertations or some similar location. At the least, it would certainly be prudent to view the dissertation's bibliography for potential sources for this article. If there is enough about Crowley for a dissertation, there is probably enough for a Wikipedia article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here, for example: WOMEN AT THE TOP, Roan, Shari. Sun-Sentinel; Fort Lauderdale [Fort Lauderdale]12 Mar 1985: 1.D. "Women own 25 percent of all small businesses in the United States and are the fastest-growing segment of the small business community, reports Savvy magazine. But women are making strides in big business as well.

Estee Lauder, chairman of Estee Lauder cosmetics, leads Savvy's second annual list of the top 60 companies run by women. The top women and their companies are:

1) Estee Lauder, Estee Lauder, chairwoman.

2) The Washington Post, Katharine Graham, chairwoman.

3) Wells, Rich, Greene Inc., Mary Wells Lawrence, chairwoman.

4) Home Interiors & Gifts Inc., Mary C. Crowley, president.

5) Liz Claiborne Inc., Elisabeth Claiborne Ortenberg, president.

6) Christian Dior, Colombe Nicholas, president.

7) Diane Von Furstenberg Inc., Diane Von Furstenberg, chairwoman.

8) Jockey International Inc., Donna Wolf Steigerwaldt, chairwoman.

9) Mary Kay Cosmetics, Mary Kay Ash, chairwoman.

Although many women are making it big in fashion and cosmetics, two of the three fastest-growing companies run by women are in other industries: computers and machinery. Thirty-two of Savvy's top 60 companies were founded by women."

SOURCES. Another PhD dissertation: “Ding dong! Avon calling!”: Gender, business, and door -to -door selling, 1890–1955; Manko, Katina Lee. University of Delaware, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2001. 3013632. Covers the company as a type (similar to Avon). and, no, I have not yet read either of these doctoral theses, I merely scanned them. However, a PhD dissertation is certainly a valid source. I do hope that editors will conduct searches in newspaper archives from this period. I have added several profiles from major newspapers.IceFishing (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IceFishing, It think it's worth pointing out that there are many similarities between Crowly and Mary Kay, and at some point, we will see a proper biography, or one of those "oops, here's an obituary we forgot to write" in the NYT. I'm worried that, at the moment, the sources don't amount to much. It's a bit of a "but surely sources will appear" case. Perhaps we should wait for those. How much of the article is worth saving and has acceptable references? Vexations (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tag removal. IceFishing removed the notability tag without an edit summary or other explanation. When I reverted this with an edit summary (as we are discussing the notability in this discussion, the tag is still relevant to the article), IceFishing reverted to remove the tag again. I am going to add the tag one more time. I have no intention of passing the reversion threshold, and I hope other editors will discuss here and/or assist with the dispute resolution process if it comes to that. IceFishing, please stop removing the tag and please start adding even brief summaries to your edits. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I thought that since I had added sources, and the article was being discussed for deletion, the "tag" was superfluous. I'm still not clear on why both a removal discussion and a notability tag are necessary. But I do apologize. Does the "tag" get removed when the discussion ends?IceFishing (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with removal/non-removal of notability tags during AfDs as the AfD will decide it regardless. Wouldn't sweat this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IceFishing. I posted this here because you reverted despite my edit comment summary. I think the article will meet notability requirements due to the improvements editors (especially you) have made. When this discussion is ended, if it is a keep and the consensus is that it meets notability, the tag will be removed. It's relevant while the discussion is going on; editors should see that it's been tagged for x length of time. If the outcome is "no consensus", and if that's due to lack of consensus on notability, it should remain (if it survives as no consensus, its being tagged from an earlier date is relevant). If the article is deleted, it won't be an issue. Also, please add edit summaries. See this. You can always type something brief, like "cite" or "add info" Peace! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I need to get up to speed on doing and reading the edit summary things. But, User:Britishfinance, User:DiamondRemley39, I am puzzled. First, because I have seen discussions close as "keep" while that tag remains in place. Also puzzled because when a "notability" box is added 1 day before the AfD discussion is started, what his the point? A deletion box and a notability box seems like overkill. Also, Isn't the notability box notice there to serve as a request that editors add sourced information? And if so, then, in a case where an editor or editors have added sourced information, why can't an editor who has just responded to the notability box by adding sources delete the box?IceFishing (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vexations, Please look at footnotes 2, 8, 10, and 11. Two of these articles are are from the The Dallas Morning News, one from the Dallas Times Herald, the last is form the Saturday Evening Post: [7]. I have just been to look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). It seems very odd that there is not a heading under something like "Entrepreneur" that might stipulate founding a corporation of a certain size as notable. But these four articles, together with the doctoral dissertation appear to meet WP:BASIC. IceFishing (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see additional validating material in searches, but get only snippet views, for example : THE TEXAS 100 The Lone Star made a mark on these women-and they made their on it: Watson, Paula. Dallas Morning News; Dallas, Tex. [Dallas, Tex]10 Mar 1999: 5C. Crowley: Founder of Home Interiors,....IceFishing (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming more convinced by some of the refs added that this could be a keep and that this was an important woman in US business - going to take a longer look. Britishfinance (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus coverage in books, in both Christian books and scholarly books; Biggart, Nicole Woolsey (1989). Charismatic Capitalism: Direct Selling Organizations in America. University of Chicago Press has discussions of her corporate style that are both in depth and extensive. I do not at all understand why this old article that I stumbled on is generating so much notability denial. It's a great Horatio Alger story, with blue-chip sourcing, albeit the ladylike, a-womans-plase-is-in-the-home style of this corporate mogul has gone out of style. But she was a real mogul. With real sources of the kind Wikipedia requires.IceFishing (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements have been taken place during this process. It was a poor article before, rife with typos and weak writing that did not properly communicate notability. Looking much better now! I and probably others will be voting accordingly soon. Good work! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that deleting this article will do anything to improve the encyclopedia. The article has much improved since this AfD. Vexations (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough refs now to support GNG, and clearly her business, which she founded, was a material size for the time (circa $1 bn), which would have made her one of the most successful US female executives in America at that time. Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a successful businessperson. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant sources found. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If the lede is true she was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paso Robles Daily News[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a community hyperlocal news website, with no credible claim to passing WP:NMEDIA or WP:NWEB. Although this did previously cite references which were stripped from the article without explanation by an editor within the past 24 hours, they were entirely primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with no evidence of coverage about it in any media independent of itself -- so simply reverting the removal of the references wouldn't salvage the article. As always, websites are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they need to have coverage about them, in sources independent of their own self-published web presence, to become notable enough for inclusion. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a virtual WP:SPA with a username potentially suggestive of the website's owner and publisher. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced article on a local news website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting WP:NMEDIA or WP:NWEB searches yield basically the website, and then facebook, youtube, medium, linkedin and like along with maybe a directory listing. We have basically no information on this aside from what it provides about itself, you can't write an article based on that. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARDOR[edit]

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

I'm not an expert on cryptocurrencies, but this seems to be lacking sufficient coverage in crypto-compliant, reliable sources. b uidhe 16:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced, mostly ruined by copyvio cleanup. Even before that the sources were questionable. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero RS coverage that I can find. Even the crypto blog coverage is promotional. Given it was deleted in the previous discussion, probably needs salting against further promotional recreation - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ardor was ranked as a top 10 performing digital asset in 2017 by the World Economic Forum. Well, no. The WEF document quotes another source (and links to https://coinmarketcap.com/assets). These days, ARDOR isn't even listed anymore. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reasons already given.

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indica Records[edit]

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

Article deleted via PROD in 2017, WP:REFUND request granted by me just now. This article likely could have been deleted as unambiguous advertising per WP:CSD#G11, but I'm going conservative by AfD instead. This record label exists, but does not appear to be notable by our standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Record labels are not automatically entitled to have articles just because some of the artists signed to the label happen to have cleared WP:NMUSIC — the notability of a record label is a condition of the volume and depth of reliable source media coverage about the label that can be shown to support the article, not just of the fact that the label exists. But this is completely unreferenced, and I can't find any notability-bolstering sources about it in a reference search: all I get is glancing acknowledgements of its existence in sources whose core subjects are the artists, and I'm finding no evidence of any coverage about the label. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I have just reworked the article so would ask people to look again. They were not easy to find, but are actually a couple of articles from reliable sources about the label specically.[8]and [9]. Slp1 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Exclaim! source represents the company's own founders talking about themselves in the first person in a Q&A format — so it would be fine for extra verification of stray facts in an article that had already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but is not a source that counts toward getting it over GNG in the first place. The Montreal Gazette source is stronger, since it's actually written in the third person by a journalist, but is not in and of itself enough if it's the only source of that calibre that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree about the Exclaim article not helping to GNG. The article is not just an interview: there is a listed author and a fairly extensive intro to the label's founding etc, written in the third person. The article is part of a series of features on different Canadian record labels which all follow the same format e.g.[10][11][12]. To me the very fact that they were chosen to be featured in the series is a sign of notability.Slp1 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews aren't exempted from the problems with sourcing stuff to Q&A interviews just because the interview happens to have a short blurb of prefatory text before the actual questions kick in; every Q&A interview always has a short blurb of prefatory text, because by definition the interview has to give at least a little bit of context for who the interviewees are and why they're being interviewed. And every interview also always has a "listed author", representing the name of the person who conducted the interview, to boot. So those aren't things that make this Q&A interview different from every other Q&A interview, because every Q&A interview always has both of those things. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bearcat is right. The two sources that have been presented as SIGCOV are not really. One's a very promotional interview in a magazine with 100k circulation. The other is in the Montreal Gazette, again with a circulation of 100k. Overall, there are two minor sources about the company, one of which is an interview; we also have a bombardment of trivial "such artist signed with X record company" type articles. None of this indicates strong notability. Therefore I think deleting is appropriate. PK650 (talk) 22:25, 9 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 18:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil V. Deodhar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as this politician has never won any national or state level elections. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The article doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. This article reads like a promotional piece. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable politician. Angus1986 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, most probably promotional per WP:IBA. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:18, 13 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 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B.L. Santhosh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as this politician has never won any national or state level elections. There are many news hits as he is spokesman of a party, but being a spokesman is not notable post for an article. (see past AfD) DBig Xrayᗙ 16:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 10 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 18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabh Mani Tripathi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as this politician has never won any national or state level elections. There are many news hits as he is spokesman of a party, but being a spokesman is not notable post for an article. (see past AfD) DBig Xrayᗙ 15:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tripathi has never held an ELECTED post at state/national level. One of many party spokespersons. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:26, 7 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 18:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Bhatia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NPOL as this politician never won any national or state level elections. There are many news hits as he is spokesman of a party, but being a spokesman is not notable post for an article. (see past AfD)DBig Xrayᗙ 15:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bhatia qualifies for notability without having electoral history. See for example, [13] ("Gaurav Bhatia is being hailed as a rising star on the BJP's spokesperson circuit [...] His is one of the many voices in the cacophony that marks most television news debates these days, but Gaurav Bhatia, a lawyer who represents the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in supercharged studio arguments, stands out."), [14] ("Former Samajwadi Party spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia joins BJP", i.e. his change of party identify was sufficient to attract a full article in one of the largest national newspapers), [15] ("Gaurav Bhatia is honorary secretary to SC Bar again", again a full bio article in national newspaper), etc. --Soman (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, it is expected that party spokespersons will get such type of coverage, it is not unusual, many times, the party pays for such coverage. On Wikipedia the bar for biographies of politicians is higher. Please familiarize yourself with WP:Notability (people)#Politicians. A parties spokesperson is not a notable post, neither is "honorary secretary to SC bar" DBig Xrayᗙ 06:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." The coverage presented above is clearly enough to quality for WP:GNG. --Soman (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, the links are covering his spokesperson role and the Hindustan T LINK is covering the routine news of him changing his party. These are not enough DBig Xrayᗙ 20:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Bhatia clearly passes WP:GNG before having shifted party. The fact that a private person changing party identity becomes national news is indication of notability. --Soman (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, no. It is WP:ROUTINE. and it is quite common for them to jump ships DBig Xrayᗙ 16:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are misusing the reference to WP:ROUTINE. WP:ROUTINE refers to the notability of events, not individuals. --Soman (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "announcement " of a politician jumping from one party to another is a ROUTINE event and a fairly common one in India. if you dislike WP:ROUTINE being used here, may be consider not using news links of articles covering WP:ROUTINE events for notability. DBig Xrayᗙ 20:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Party spokespersons are not notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just having published news articles doesn't make the person notable. Fails WP:GNG Angus1986 (talk) 10:39, 13 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 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Sikkim[edit]

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

After seeing the condition of the article and after google search I did not find any reason that the subject should be a separate article. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a state WP:BRANCH of a political party and not a separate independent party. The notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and this wing fails WP:ORGCRIT. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Bharatiya Janata Party. Does not qualify for a split per WP:BRANCH. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 13:31, 7 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 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fundator[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Also an editor of multiple predatory journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence in current article to meet our notability guidelines. (Some evidence that was previously in the article - I removed it - was so vague and poorly sourced that it was misleading.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had tagged this for notabiity when I was patrolling with the intention of sending to AfD it is was not resolved; there is no RS on this subject to meet GNG, outside of self-published blogs / strange award / cititations from predatory journals, there is nothing there. Britishfinance (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims of significance are not just inadequate; they border on the incoherent. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar shows only single-digit citations (totalled over all publications), far below WP:PROF#C1. No other evidence of notability is apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article author) it in draft until ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalmaonMaaki (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article author SalmaonMaaki has unhelpfully moved the AfD article to draftspace and deleted the tags (which I have restored). Britishfinance (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Moved the article back from Draft for the completion of this AfD. Note to SalmaonMaaki not to do this again until the AfD is finished. Thanks you. Britishfinance (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Draftification doesn't make sense, as there appears to be no path to establishing notability (of which there is no evidence). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:04, 10 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 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panchamantra Road[edit]

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

The article subject is not notable. It is a road in Mysuru without any significance (culturally, historically, etc.). LittleT889 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. LittleT889 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability for generic street Reywas92^Talk 04:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best a random road. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 07:35, 13 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. Nobody except for one editor believes this isn't non-notable and mere advertising. Sandstein 18:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witeck Communications[edit]

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

It's a puff piece sourced entirely (and without verifiable links) by the company's own research, website, publications and PR. A search has returned just this article, social media, the amazon page for their book, and a passing quote from Witeck which does not reach WP:SIGCOV. That, and the involvement of COI editors (including Witeck) show this for the spam it is. It fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a likely keep, nom may have overlooked “Witeck-Combs Communications” while doing their WP:Before due diligence. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409, you mean, "18:30, 18 December 2012 Bob Witeck talk contribs m 6,997 bytes 0 Bob Witeck moved page Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc. to Witeck Communications, Inc.: Our firm's name changed on January 1, 2012 from Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc. to Witeck Communications, Inc."? I saw it. The most promising link returned on a search of the old name was enacademic.com which turns out to be a copy of Wikipedia's article. This subject lacks reliable, verifiable, independent sources under both names. Cabayi (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's obviously blatant advertising and not neutral. To the point that I'd almost say its speedy delete worthy. For instance see the research section. If the advert and none neutral stuff is cleaned up there won't enough of it left to warrant the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may have been a bit of a challenge but I found some sources that can help meet GNG. Some are possibly from different editions of the same book, but I think there is indeed enough to develop a good article:
- This list of a dozen or so Awards and recognition over the years could be sourced and added
  - In 2010, Witeck was a finalist for the Trailblazer Award by Out & Equal Workplace Advocates – a national organization that champions safe and equitable workplaces for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.
  - In 2009, Witeck was named one of 20 outstanding openly gay Virginians by Equality Virginia, the state’s LGBT civil rights group.
  - 2006 National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Wells Fargo LGBT Business Owner of the Year Award: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
  - Instinct Magazine 24 Leading Men for 2006: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
  - 2004 Potomac Executive Network’s Business Leaders of the Year: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
  - 2004 Association of National Advertisers Multicultural Marketing Award: Volvo/Witeck-Combs Communications
  - 2004 Advertising Research Foundation’s David Ogilvy Award finalist: Witeck-Combs Communications/Harris Interactive
  - 2003 Out & Equal Trailblazer Award: Wesley Combs
  - 2003 Out Magazine Out 100 list: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
  - 2003 American Demographics Magazine’s 25 Most Influential People in the last 25 years in the field of Market Research: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
  - 2002 Distinguished Service Award from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association: Bob Witeck
  - 2001 and 2002 Gay Financial Network’s Most Influential Gay and Lesbian Corporate Executives: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs

- Thrasher, Steven W. (2015-04-04). "Bob Witeck, Walmart's LGBT consultant, gets corporations on the workers' side". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-02-07.</ref>
- Guaracino, Jeff (2007-11-15). Gay and Lesbian Tourism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-40116-9.</ref>
- Sender, Katherine (2005-01-05). Business, Not Politics: The Making of the Gay Market. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-50916-9.</ref>
- Tiemeyer, Phil (2013-03-12). Plane Queer: Labor, Sexuality, and AIDS in the History of Male Flight Attendants. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-27477-8.</ref>
- "'Amplifier' awards to honor fair, accurate portrayal of LGBT people in advertising". LGBTQ Nation. September 3, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2020.</ref>
- The Adweek Directory. Cornell University: ASM Communications. 2008. p. 777.</ref>
- The Advertising Red Books: Business classifications. Cornell University: LexisNexis. October 2006. p. 775.</ref>
- Quirk's Marketing Research Review. Quirk Enterprises. 2006. pp. 24, 32.</ref>
- Quirk's Marketing Research Review. Quirk Enterprises. 2005. p. 42.</ref>
- Adweek. VNU Business Publications. January 2010. pp. lix, cxcv.</ref>
- Queer Futures. Murphy, Kevin., Ruiz, Jason., Serlin, David. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-8223-6686-7. OCLC 179838855.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)</ref>
- Choice. American Library Association. 2007. p. 1211.</ref>
- Adweek: MAC/Western advertising news. A/S/M Communications. 2006. p. 23.</ref>
- PR Week Contact. Haymarket Media, Incorporated. 2007. p. 113.</ref>
- Brandweek. Adweek L.P. April 2006. p. 3.</ref>
- The Advertising Red Books: Business classifications. LexisNexis. October 2006. p. 775.</ref>
- Brandweek. Adweek L.P. April 2006. p. 1031.</ref>
- Workforce Management. Crain Communications. 2004. p. 69.</ref>
- The Advocate. Liberation Publications. 2003. p. 31.</ref>
- The Advocate. Liberation Publications. 2003. p. 115.</ref>
- American Demographics. PRIMEDIA Business Magazines & Media. 2003. p. 39.</ref>
- BNA Human Resources Report. Bureau of National Affairs, Incorporated. July 2002. pp. 1031–32.</ref>
- BNA's Employment Discrimination Report. Bureau of National Affairs. July 2002. p. 294.</ref>
- The Advocate. Liberation Publications. 2002. p. 22.</ref>
- Government Employee Relations Report. Bureau of National Affairs. 2002. p. 910.</ref>
- Human Resources Report. Bureau of National Affairs, Incorporated. 2002. pp. 1031–32.</ref>
- The Advocate. Liberation Publications. 2000. pp. 18, 92.</ref>
- Daily Labor Report. Bureau of National Affairs. 2002. pp. A-31-2.</ref>
- Agencies, The Change. "First National Network of Independent Multicultural and LGBTQ Public Relations Firms Launches". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 2020-02-08.</ref>
- News, A. B. C. "Christopher Reeve Dead at 52". ABC News. Retrieved 2020-02-08. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)</ref>
- "Hummus Brand Sabra Airs 1st Super Bowl Ad To Feature Drag Queens - And 19 Celebs | News Briefs". nocamels.com. 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2020-02-08.</ref>
- "Super Bowl Surreality: Fox Rejected Pro-life Commercial, but Ran Drag Queen Ad". www.thenewamerican.com. Retrieved 2020-02-08.</ref>
- www.worldtribune.com https://www.worldtribune.com/fox-allows-super-bowl-ads-for-drag-queens-but-not-abortion-survivors/. Retrieved 2020-02-08. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref>
- http://# (2020-01-30). "RuPaul Reminded Us She's Already Done A Super Bowl Ad". Instinct Magazine. Retrieved 2020-02-08.</ref>
- Business, Chauncey Alcorn, CNN. "How gay couples in TV commercials became a mainstream phenomenon". CNN. Retrieved 2020-02-08. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>
- Siggins, Dustin; Solutions, Proven Media. "Did Chick-fil-A make the right move?". www.prweek.com. Retrieved 2020-02-08.</ref>
- "Opinion: Born to be Gay". Washington Blade: Gay News, Politics, LGBT Rights. 2019-10-20. Retrieved 2020-02-08.</ref>
- News, A. B. C. "Meet the man hoping to battle LGBTQ bank discrimination with a new credit union". ABC News. Retrieved 2020-02-08. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)</ref>
- "LGBTQ Loyalty Holdings Announces Distribution of Index Constituent Survey through The Harris Poll and Pride Media". AP NEWS. 2019-09-26. Retrieved 2020-02-08.</ref>
There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409, I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.

If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’ve reworked the article a bit and added thirty-plus sources. I realize that no amount of sources will satisfy everyone but I think it does show that sources exist and a good article is possible. Usually I systematically go through all the possible sources to use what I can but in this case after a few days I was simple too tired and didn’t get to them all. P.S. Bob Witeck should undoubtedly have his own article as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one added, from cleveland.com, mentions some research done by Witeck-Combs Communications in passing in the 16th paragraph. That's not signifcant coverage and shows no discernment in the selection of sources. Are any of the other 29 sources added any better? Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t expect to find much in-depth coverage of a Pr firm but there were a few; I consider the more relevant point is that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has so much WikiPuffery and so little WP:RS that it isn't worth trying to salvage. Dorama285 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If that we’re true it would be a clean up issue, not an AfD issue. I believe the sources are reliable, and that puffed language had been removed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:40, 10 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 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camidoh[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not qualify per GNG. Furthermore subject does not satisfy MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject only brings up promotional links to her music. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:53, 11 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 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

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

Fails the GNG. No secondary coverage whatsoever. schetm (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to an article on the district of Portland where it is located. I thought of suggesting a redirect to Northwest District of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, but I do not think that would work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Church is apparently located in the suburb of Happy Valley, across the county line from Portland, in spite of their official site listing it as a Portland address. It appears to be completely run of the mill. There are also (apparently) churches of the name name in the suburbs of Hillsboro and Vancouver. In my view, merging isn't called for and would be out of place in the Happy Valley article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:53, 11 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 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany Lutheran Church (Lake Worth, Florida)[edit]

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

Non-notable congregation. It received some attention for putting up a tall cross/cell tower in 2009, but fails WP:SUSTAINED. schetm (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge perhaps to Lake Worth, Florida. The article shows nothing beyond local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability guidelines. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with IceFishing; not even the cell tower makes this church notable. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see page 21 of the pdf in this scholarly article: dealing with the giant cross/cell tower. It is also mentioned here and in this magazine article. It seems that the church is a pioneer in the disguised cell tower phenomenon. Also, the church was one of a handful of sites that conducted this sociological study. The pastor wrote about it extensively in this general Christian-oriented ministry book and in their denominational seminary journal.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is significant coverage. The mention on page 21 of the SUSTECH article is just that: a mention. A one sentence mention. Same with the Oxford American article, which presents the cross as a tourist attraction. Apart from the flurry of local SIGCOV in 2009, there hasn't been any since. Two of the other sources you present refer to church merely as the place the pastor works, literally just saying "Douglas Fountain is pastor of Epiphany Lutheran Church, Lake Worth, Florida." That's not SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The implied context of the articles by the pastor is of this particular church, alone. The pastor wouldn't have anything to say about social dynamics had the church not been part of the study.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as User:Epiphyllumlover states, the giant cross cell phone tower has brought ongoing coverage to this church.IceFishing (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough reliable sources coverage in the article to support it's contents or trim appropriately, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing to delete because the more I think about it, the more I think the giant-cross-commercial-cell-phone-tower is not sufficient to make this very nice sounding congregation notable. Phone me on my cell if somebody comes up with something more persuasive. IceFishing (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that actually meets the criteria for demonstrating sustained notability of the congregation. The cell tower content might be worth merging into a larger page on cell towers, or cell tower disguises. But notability is not inherited, and having a cell tower installed doesn’t give the congregation notability warranting their own separate article. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very few congregations with less than 200 members (and actually most less than 2,000 members) are notable, this is not an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability of the cell tower would be separate from the church, similar to Mickey pylon (which I'm surprised the article exists) – The Grid (talk) 15:42, 11 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 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Avedon[edit]

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

Unclear notability. It appears that he was the lead for 3 martial arts films in the 1980s and 1990s, but unclear if that passes notability. Natg 19 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: He has starred in a number of martial arts films, but only a few seem to be moderately noteworthy, like No Retreat, No Surrender 2 and No Retreat, No Surrender 3: Blood Brothers. I think the bigger issue is sourcing, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial aritsts or actors. The only thing sourced in the article is his birth date. Fails to meet WP:MANOTE, WP:NACTOR, or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject is mentioned in various books on martial arts films, including a book containing Variety film reviews. I’m not arguing that these references are sufficient or otherwise—simply that there are some book references out there:

→https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wHRZAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Loren+Avedon%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Loren+Avedon%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyjZz5nMTnAhUuxjgGHRa5BwwQ6AEIZjAH – the Variety film review for (it seems) No Retreat, No Surrender 2; I’m not able to see the full review, but would expect the subject’s performance to be commented on, since he was the film’s star

→https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MKEfDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA173&dq=%22Loren+Avedon%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyjZz5nMTnAhUuxjgGHRa5BwwQ6AEINDAB#v=onepage&q=%22Loren%20Avedon%22%20-wikipedia&f=false – mention and brief review of the subject’s martial arts skills in the film, The King of the Kickboxers

→https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MKEfDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA173&dq=%22Loren+Avedon%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyjZz5nMTnAhUuxjgGHRa5BwwQ6AEINDAB#v=onepage&q=%22Loren%20Avedon%22%20-wikipedia&f=false – reviews of some films the subject was in

→https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3r0yDJcHYtYC&pg=PA223&dq=%22Loren+Avedon%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyjZz5nMTnAhUuxjgGHRa5BwwQ6AEIRzAD#v=onepage&q=%22Loren%20Avedon%22%20&f=false – several mentions in this book with respect to films he’s starred in, as well as a comment on his lack of output in more recent years

→There are other sources like this, too, and if the article were to remain, some of these could certainly be added. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any notability standards for martial artists or actors. The sources mentioned above are not significant coverage. They're lists of movie casts, lists of martial arts actors, etc. They do not show the coverage needed to meet the GNG. Adding more of them won't make him any more notable.Sandals1 (talk) 15:30, 11 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 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congregations of the Northern Illinois District – LCMS[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This also fails LISTN as no secondary sources discuss the congregations of the LCMS NID as a set. schetm (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (without the list) to Northern Illinois District of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. The section of the article after the list has significant information of the district, which looks to me as if it is the equivalent of a diocese in other denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the list doesn't even have a source, and a brief look at https://www.lcms.org/ doesn't show an easy way to filter by district either. If this were a stable list, with sources, maybe it could be merged into Northern Illinois District of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, but it has no source and I don't know how often congregations are staring or ending in this denomination, so it might be a constantly-outdated topic. (I suspect it's one of the more stable denominations, but even the more-stable denominations are less stable than they used to be.) Unless there is evidence that the set of congregations is highly stable, it becomes a WP:NOTDIR problem, and isn't worth merging. --Closeapple (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and nothing that shows notability. A redirect might be OK but the suggested target also doesn't have independent coverage or notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:21, 11 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 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Motor Film Awards[edit]

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

Can't find any independent reliable sources: not even mentions. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the AfD nomination an editor has added a dozen-plus references. I did not look to see if those meet 'reliable sources' standards. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could you please elaborate on why this is nominated for deletion? International Motor Film Awards was renamed from the London Motor Film Festival in 2017, and I feel the article is well formatted and meets the quality criteria of Wikipedia. It is of no lesser quality than substantively similar articles (such as other film festivals etc) and it is a legitimate event which has been running for a number of years. You are welcome to check the references, they are reliable sources. Thanks, Janipewter (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janipewter because when I nominated it, it had just one reference, and that was to its own website, which is not independent; and because a search did not show me any independent references. I see that PewterCityGym has added a load of references, which I will look at (but not now); but I notice that all of them are references for particular films winning the prize: there still does not appear to be a single independent reference to a source which discusses the award itself. That is the gold standard for Wikipedia articles: see WP:GNG. --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article sourcing has been improved. Please take a look! Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (original nominator): yes, twenty six references have been added, but not one that contains substantial material about the Festival. Reference 2 is about the 2015 winners, and has a couple of paragraphs about the festival. That would work as a second source if it were coupled with a more substantial independent piece about the festival; but AFAICS the other 26 references are all about particular films nominated or winning. It is possible that one or two of them have a paragraph or two about the Festival (I doubt it, but I haven't looked); but unless one of them has substantial material about the Festival and that material plainly does not come directly from the Festival but is somebody's independent work, the article does not establish notability for the festival. Janipewter this is not a comment about the quality, importance, or popularity of the Festival: it is about whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for whether Wikipedia is prepared to host an article about it. As for other articles: that is not relevant: there are many substandard articles in Wikipedia, some of which should be deleted if anybody gets round to it. See other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the newly added sources are problematic. [16] for example, isn't by an independent journalist but by the Carfection audio podcast. "We're celebrating our win at the International Motor Film Awards". The list is very long and frankly exhausting to go though, but a few stand out as particularly unncyclopedic. furrows.co.uk? A car dealer is a source now? Come on. Vexations (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete? Don't just comment, tell us what to do here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed all the sources and found that there is one source that is likely generally reliable:roadandtrack.com it's owned by Hearst Communications, Inc. and hs an editorial staff. The article that is used as a source, unfortunately is written by a friend of the winners of the "Best Journalism Film" award, who writes "Congratulations! It's a well deserved win according to a biased Hungarian", and doesn't really say much about the subject (the award) at all. The other sources are press releases, agencies, brand consultants, trade magazines, and yes, used car salesmen. Vexations (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, apologies - I'm new to this! I understand a lot of the sources are not that reliable due to being made about nominees/winners sorry about that. What about the two articles on Speedhunters (reference 2 & 8), both articles are an independent source that have substantial material about the subject. This is my first Wikipedia page and I'm still gathering sources to improve it and avoid deletion.PewterCityGym (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't the reliability of the references, PewterCityGym, but their independence and substantial coverage. It is possible that the Speedhunters items will do, but not I'm not convinced that they are independent, especially since the 2015 one says that the award ceremony was compered by "Speedhunters’ very own Bryn Musselwhite". --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 13 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:RS added by BOZ and Guinness323. The consensus is now also clear to keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Talents (role-playing game)[edit]

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

Company article unsourced to anything other than company's own website. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com, fails to locate WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this publication was discussed in Appelcline's Designers & Dragons (reliable source per RSN)and received many, many RS reviews which meet NBOOK and the GNG. AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and this looks like the vindictive Hillfolk AfD all over again. Perhaps this admin was given his tools too soon.
Also, NCORP does not apply. Chetsford, you can tell the difference between a company and a publication, can't you? Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"received many, many RS reviews" Sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Chetsford (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's Gizmodo and here's GMS Magazine. Sometimes Google works as advertised. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the Gizmodo link. "Gmsmagazine.com" is not RS. Due to insufficient RS - demonstrated by article sourced a single reference (Gizmodo) - WP:SIGCOV is not demonstrated and the article should be deleted for failing the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - GMS certainly is a RS, but if you don't like that, Wild Talents is discussed at length in Designers & Dragons (Vol. 4, pp. 250-2). You really ought to withdraw this nom, to protect your record. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - A single source is insufficient to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Creative accounting, but Gizmodo and Applecline are two distinct SOGCOV RS. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Gizmodo is a repost of a personal blog "Robot Viking" and is not RS. "Designers & Dragons" is not RS. I seem to have erred in saying a single source, as we currently have no sources. Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps your memory is not what it once was, but here is the discussion that you stated, that concluded that Applecline is reliable. Are you funning us, perhaps?
        And Gizmodo certainly offers the necessary degree of editorial oversight to make the review reliable. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, fails WP:GNG - needs another source or two. SportingFlyer T·C 00:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been provided here, per policy this is what matters. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the gizmodo source possibly qualifies, but it was originally printed on a personal blog, so we really need two more good sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gizmodo review is an entirely reliable source in this context, and why are you ignoring the three-page discussion in Designers & Dragons, found to be a reliable source at RSN? Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Robot Viking" (republished on Gizmodo) is not RS. Designers & Dragons was discovered to be "generally reliable" (except for BLPs or controversial statements) on RSN, which is a different question as to whether or not it contributes to notability. A source may be RS but mention of a person or thing in that source does not contribute to its notability. The minutes of the Houston City Council are probably reliable for the transactions of the Houston City Council; that does not assign notability to any person, place, or thing read into the minutes. Similarly, we consider many trade journals (e.g. Food Processing & Manufacturing, Packaging Digest, etc.) to be RS, but do not generally consider them to contribute to the notability of the companies they cover. Since "Designers & Dragons" - in its umpteen volumes - covers literally just about every conceivable game ever published it follows that there is no assignment of notability for merely appearing in it, though it might be a RS for facts about those games. Chetsford (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Thanks for setting out so clearly the difference between your own thinking and the WP:GNG - the latter does not recognize a class of independent sources that are reliable but do not contribute to notability because they are too comprehensive. Your argument is equivalent to arguing that a dead tree Britannica does not contribute to notability because it is too detailed.
      - By the way, closers are bound by policy to ignore arguments, such as the one you are currently making, that are unsupported by - and in fact conflict with - key WP policies. Your comparison of the major, four volume, reference work on RPGs to the minutes of a mid-sized municipal government suggest that you might not be clear what an independent, reliable source is. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no conflict in Chetsford's analysis. Articles such as these have a difficult time being referenced to reliable independent sources. Your analysis here is simply a straw man, as a directory which indiscriminately discusses a source does not necessarily contribute to notability, and even if it did we're still short of sources to keep this one. I am, however, happy to review any new sources you provide and would be willing to switch my !vote if better sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 04:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, the Appelcline text is not a "directory" and is by no means indiscriminate; it is a nonfiction text in chapter and paragraph form that treats only important RPG works by each designer and publisher. The discussion of Wild Talents is three dead-tree book pages long, and I would be happy to send you the text off-wiki (which is legit for me to do given the copyright regime where I live) but of course I cannot post it here. Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"is by no means indiscriminate" - To be clear, across its four volumes it is 1600 pages and, according to its indices, address more than 3,000 games in those 1600 pages, many of which are mentioned in no other RS known to man. Applecline is overt in saying this is a "comprehensive" history of all games. While it, as established by RSN, is RS for non-BLPs, it has the characteristics of a directory and - though perhaps factual - mere inclusion in this catalog doesn't contribute to notability. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I and others have noted elsewhere, Designers & Dragons is a reliable, independent source. It is a historical narrative of the companies, designers, and games it discussed and has nine of the characteristics of a directory. There are many games and game products it does not discuss in its four volumes, so your accusations here are nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. I do not believe that inclusion in a single catalogue qualifies as significant coverage. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you are repeating Fake news from Chetsford. Designers & Dragons is a long-form text of cultural history, not a "catalogue". Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the RS Applecline citation, this was nominated for role-playing Game of the Year at the 2010 ENnies. (It might have won if it hadn't been published the same year as Pathfinder). These two sources strongly suggest notability.Guinness323 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment With the award nomination and two RS citations (Applecline and Pyramid review) this would seem to meet notability requirements. Guinness323 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimlartial and Guinness323. Sufficient reliable sources demonstrate notability as is, even before more are added to the article. oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article meet WP:N. I'm not sure why this is here. Designers and Dragons as well as Pyramid are reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:THREE met between Gizmodo, Designers & Dragons and Pyramid. feminist (talk) 02:53, 13 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 18:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Association for Body Psychotherapy[edit]

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

This article has never had any independent sources, and I can't find anything other than directories and namechecks. That's a particular problem because much of what they promote is woo. You'll be astounded to learn that the article was created and all substantive content written by someone who is a name match for someone who is an honorary member, former director and member of their "scientific committee". Guy (help!) 11:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugh, Delete sources? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 7 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. AfD is not cleanup, and it has been demonstrated that there is a lot of RS about this character. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hunt[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character passes GNG/NFICTION. No reception outside two unreliable list mentions. My BEFORE shows only mentions in passing/plot summaries/unreliable fansite discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lead character in a billion dollar film franchise, there's been plenty of material written about the character and, more importantly, the portrayal of him by Tom Cruise, including much material on the real-world production of the stunts that the character is known for. Yes, that does speak to the notability of the character, as real-world production aspects are exactly what should be added. Does the article stand to incorporate some of that better? Sure, and when I'm not so busy I'll work on it. But AFD is not cleanup. More importantly, the nom's WP:BEFORE must not have been very through, because even a cursory click on the link here yields plenty of material from quality sources specifically about the character that could easily be used. Jumping to deletion is a mission I chose not to accept. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Oknazevad, this article needs an overhaul, but not a deletion. Just a super-quick Google News search turns up multiple news articles focused on the Ethan Hunt character, and that's just scratching the surface of the multitude of possible sources going back a quarter-century when this $3.5 billion franchise was launched. (The DVD commentaries for the movies would probably also have a ton of great information.) Oknazevad's point about the stunts is a good one too; there are many aspects about this fictional character that could be touched upon when the article is overhauled. — Hunter Kahn 14:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources that Hunter Kahn gives show obvious notability. As Oknazevad says, the lead character of a hugely successful multi-film franchise played by one of America's most famous movie stars is going to get a lot of coverage, in entertainment media as well as general sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable with significant coverage from these sources:

Holding On: Mission: Impossible and the Myth of the Perfect Man
Contemporary Hollywood Masculinities: Gender, Genre, and Politics, pages 114-119 link
'Mission: Impossible': Ethan Hunt Is The Action Hero of a Generation
Screening Characters: Theories of Character in Film, Television, and Interactive Media, pages 267, 272-3, 276 link
Tom Cruise: Performing Masculinity in Post Vietnam Hollywood, pages 16, 39, 49, 127, 148 (at least) link
Sunday Reads: The Evolution Of Ethan Hunt, That Poor, Invincible Rag Doll Of A Man
On Film, pages 139, 148, 160, 168, 221 (likely more) link

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge or Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series). Notability is not the main issue here, it's that this article is 95% plot summary and thus has been failing WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF#Summary style approach for over 14(!) years. It's obvious that no-one wants to work on this article, so remove it until someone does. (By the way, Benji Dunn and Luther Stickell would have been the lower hanging fruits to clean up the M:I character coverage.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The in-universe content has now been purged from the article. The "main issue" no longer exists. You're invited to implement a source or two. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Erik, I undid the removal of that content. I don't think removing it completely is appropriate, nor necessary. This article could and should easily be expanded to include more than just in-universe content, but at least some plot summary is to be expected in an article about a fictional character. Scale it back, maybe, but we don't need to ax it altogether. As for Sgeureka's remarks, I think it's a pretty weak argument for deletion. "It's obvious that no-one wants to work on this article" isn't how Wikipedia works; first of all, you can't really know that's true (plus we've already had at least one editor in this discussion express interest in working on it), and second of all, that wouldn't be a rationale for deletion anyway. The question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG. The sources shared above indicate that it does, and any issues with the quality of the article are an argument for improving it, not deleting it. — Hunter Kahn 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My removal was to show how easy it was to actually address the so-called issue; something they could have done themselves. I also started an "Analysis" section. However, in the long run, I think the in-universe summary should be tighter and more personal. If anything, Mission: Impossible (film series) should have the longer summaries than this topic's. The character's article can link to that and focus on more character-specific details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Main character of a major film series. Sources are available as stated above. The article can be improved, but that is not an argument for deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significamt coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified earlier in this discussion so WP:GNG is passed and there is no need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 9 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 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anusheh Asad[edit]

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

No souces found. Fails WP:NMODEL. Störm (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:46, 11 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 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Ahmad[edit]

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

No coverage found. Promotional, fails WP:NACADEMIC. Störm (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither his publication record nor his level of administrative service are enough for WP:PROF, and the article is more or less entirely unsourced, so WP:GNG also seems far out of reach. I was able to find at least three people named Rashid Ahmad who appear to have better citation records than this one, and in fact did not find any publications that were clearly by this one in searching for this author name in Google Scholar. There are also two people with this name in MathSciNet, one at Strathclyde who published 38 papers between 1978 and 2000, and another who has published only four papers in 2018–2019; neither appears to match the subject. And much of the content of the article makes me think that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 10 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 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgie Mission Church[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. There is a claim the building is listed, but it's not in the official database. Even if it was, there are 47,400 listed buildings in Scotland - a simple listing isn't sufficient to pass WP:NBUILD as significant coverage is still required. --Pontificalibus 08:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 08:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 08:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 08:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This website [17], and articles in The Scotsman and Edinburgh Evening News call it a "listed building". IceFishing (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but per my nom it's not actually listed. It's not in the national authoritative database. To confirm that this isn't a mistake, I have just viewed nearby planning applications on Edinburgh Council's website. Application 19/00863/FUL for 236 Gorgie Road has as a background document an "Archaeological desk based assessment" which states at the bottom of page nine that there are three listed buildings within 250 metres of the site, none of which is this mission church.----Pontificalibus 16:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sadly, but it is just another church. Dear to its congregation no doubt, but not notable to the world. Even if it turns out that this is listed after all (and the nom. establishes genuine doubt on that point), it does not make it notable unless there are some WP:RS establishing notability, and my search for sources yielded nothing at all. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My research suggests it is not a listed building (search on 'Gorgie' at http://portal.historicenvironment.scot/search ... 22 results, none promising.) It is listed on Canmore at https://canmore.org.uk/site/152775/edinburgh-gorgie-salvation-army-hall ... had it been a listed building, I'd have argued keep, since I disagree with Pontificalibus 'simple listing' thesis. I have a feeling that a 1908 mission with a story and in a corrugated building probably has the legs to get to notability, but it's far from there right now. So. Sorry that view from the fence is not more useful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I entirely agree with User:Tagishsimon above. Had it been a listed building it would have been a definite keep per WP:GEOFEAT. However, it definitely does not appear to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 10 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. Materialscientist (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Tauras[edit]

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

Not notable model/actor. Prod declined by author. Renata (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable BLP. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Notable, links and references are correct. No need to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma Robbie (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable BLP. Accodrding to the article and few sources he was an extra on a music video and attended modeling classes in Lithuania and Los Angeles. Hardly passes GNG (doesn't). let alone notability requirements for people. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Newton Abbot. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Newton Abbot[edit]

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

The flag of a town of 25,000 people--a flag that is a very recent invention without historic significance--is in appropriate for an article DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article on Newton Abbot. The article on the town already has a picture of the flag and information on the flag probably belongs there. Vorbee (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect , already added content to the town article. Renata (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Newton Abbot - Not independently notable, but the flag is mentioned at the town article. Hog Farm (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge with the main Newton Abbot seems to be the obvious way to go. I would agree with the view that the flag in itself is not notable enough to have an article, but it is of relevance to Newton Abbot and so details can be added there. Dunarc (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The lack of newspaper reported sources (even from local ones) which I'd expect for such a recently created flag are lacking so I would have to say merge until such time as appropriate sources are found. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of F-Zero characters[edit]

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

contains quite a bit of prose but the premise of the list seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT Prisencolin (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I love F-Zero, Captain Falcon is far and away the most notable character of the series - and he already has his own article. The only reference I could find to support a list of characters is this, but that doesn't indicate significant coverage, therefore this list fails WP:LISTN. Most if not all of the reception is about Falcon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think ZXCVBNM said it perfectly, there just isn't enough independent coverage on the characters to merit its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I have decided to close this since fellow Wikipedians decided to keep this article and I am happy now with the sources given here. (non-admin closure) Abishe (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Wolff[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and underlinked. The article doesn't have even a single source. The author of the article is also blocked since 2008. Abishe (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Director of a (now-former) national laboratory and author of a Nature article with 8,500 (!) citations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pi.1415926535. I found sources fairly easily and he looks to me like an easy pass for GNG and for WP:PROF. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now has sources, and is otherwise in better shape than the article creator left it in 2007 (all edits since its creation have been by other people). Manually adding up his Google Scholar h-index, I get a value of 46, indicating a pass of WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On a procedural note: why does the block status of the article creator matter for a deletion discussion? It doesn't seem that the article creator was blocked for having created this page, and I'm not sure that it's germane. (I will also note that an article not having sources doesn't actually say anything about the subject's notability). Gilded Snail (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two published obituaries are adequate for the content of the article, and Google Scholar shows an overwhelming pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of All That cast members. Sandstein 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Brummet[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. All roles were minor (if we're generous). No SIGCOV in reliable sources. All I could find were mentions in gossip rags about her comments on Ms. Bynes. PK650 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete or Redirect: Fails WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: If the consensus is to delete, I would support a Redirect to List of All That cast members, as proposed by Nate • (chatter). Dflaw4 (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of All That cast members Outside that show, all small one-shot supporting roles, and she's out of the industry. Nate • (chatter) 14:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Azhagu (TV series). Sandstein 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudha (Tamil actress)[edit]

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

Unknown, unsourced actress. She has acted in the 80s, but good sources/newspapers are needed. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Azhagu (TV series), which seems to be the most relevant article for anyone searching her name. She fails WP:NACTOR, having only starred in one notable production, and since the article is sourced only to IMDB it fails WP:GNG, Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do I only see }} when I hover my cursor over the article title, rather than seeing the lead sentence? I can't see anything strange about the infobox or lead, or any other reason for this. There must be something subtly odd about the article but I can't spot it. PamD 16:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has not reliable sources at all.
Weak Keep or Redirect: I don't think passing WP:NACTOR is so much the problem as the lack of sources, as the nominator pointed out. The best I was able to find was an article in The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/dance/thirukkural-in-a-dance-format/article23681564.ece. Perhaps someone else will find more sources which will get the subject over the line for WP:GNG. But if the consensus is to delete, I would support a "Redirect" to Azhagu (TV series), as proposed by Devonian Wombat. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:05, 10 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 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmibai Radhakisan Toshniwal College of Commerce[edit]

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

This college seems unnotable. There is multiple issues, including the article being an orphan, which seems that this makes it unnotable. Not every college needs to be on Wikipedia. TFFfan (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TFFfan (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TFFfan (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not every college needs to be included on wikipedia. This college does not seem to possess any independent and reliable sources for its inclusion on wikipedia. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 07:28, 13 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] ttps://sre.gob.mx/images/stories/doctransparencia/rdc/6lbcsonu.pdf

[2] ttps://www.senado.gob.mx/comisiones/relext_ap/docs/Dictamen_Nueva_Zelandia.pdf

[1]

[2]