Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 23:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petaling Jaya Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG Gnews in English and Malay names yields just passing mentions. One would expect a museum aged over 12 years to get more coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM; article has sources which provide significant coverage and seem substantial to me; i expect further sourcing available about museum's opening, closure, re-opening, more. --Doncram (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is entirely different or same as the Museum of Asian Art, also in Petaling Jaya, also known as "Muzium Seni Asia", also conceivably known sometimes as Petaling Jaya Museum. Insight Guides: Explore Kuala Lumpur states that Petaling Jaya "boasts an excellent museum and conservatory" meaning that one, which it goes on about. If it is different, it is notable also and should be linked from the AFD topic article, and an article for it should be created in order to continue/expand Wikipedia's coverage about museums of the world, which are basically all notable (except small private never-open-to-the-public ones). If it is same, then there is substantial more to add to the current article. There are 8 hits in "Google books" search link above, but the specific coverage about the museums is not available via free previews.--Doncram (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From further browsing, it seems to me to be the same, and there is lots available. The museum hosts important exhibitions which get coverage, e.g. 2017 article in New Straits Times. The current Wikipedia article makes it sound very boring, but it seems more likely to me that it is interesting and up-and-coming in fact. --Doncram (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's coverage about museums of the world, which are basically all notable": That is false, museums have no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITSAMUSEUM. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSAMUSEUM is an essay. You haven't addressed how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources in the article are reliable in the wikipedia-sense (WP:RS). The only reasonable coverage presented is the New Straits Times article, and it barely provides any information about the museum. Fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we keep Museums - even better when they pass WP:N. Other non trivial sources exist. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I easily found another source that I don't think has been mentioned yet: "Heritage Dolls" in the New Strait Times (2017), which is a detailed description of a Petaling Jaya Museum exhibit. Also, WP:ITSAMUSEUM. Yes, that's just an essay, but essays are helpful and when they get cited a lot, it indicates that the essay makes a compelling argument. As Lightburst says, we keep museums. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this article should be delete. It have some references about this article and in my opinion, it should be keep. --Claude Warrior (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Fabian[edit]

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

Still unsourced after 14 years. Very little on Google beyond routine coverage. Warrants deletion unless someone has something to add. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search turned up nothing but PR Newswire and Business Wire press releases. The only other coverage were minor mentions. With no significant third-party coverage and notability not shown, this fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - financial and investment advisers are run of the mill. There's nothing from what I can see that shows he passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable financial journalist. When we source an article to the subjects own publications that is redflag status. This article also seems overly promotional and almost trying to use Wikipedia as an add platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sourcing I could find was basic PR churnalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Before I nominated, there was nothing in the article. It changed ever since. (non-admin closure) Analog Horror, (Speak) 20:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Tenn[edit]

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

There is no notability or significant coverage. The only reference is from Sportsreference.com, and when I did a search, only 3 pages of results showed up, which were all Wikipedia mirror sites. Analog Horror, (Speak) 23:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at THREE Olympic Games, per WP:NOLY, and was the oldest cyclist to represent Jamaica. He was also the President of the Jamaica Cycling Federation and team manager for the Commonwealth Games per this and this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the reasons always raised every time an Olympic competitor shows up here. (And, as Lugnuts demonstrates, this is one of the easiest ones for whom to find additional sources.) -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable. Obviously passes WP:NOLY. Passes GNG easily per Lugnuts' sources. Close this now to avoid wasting time that could be spent improving this article or others. This is getting old. It's clear what consensus is in these situations. Smartyllama (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Before I nominated it, there was nothing there, no sections, paragraphs, or sources. Don't blame me for making a terrible AFD. Analog Horror, (Speak) 20:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND. There's a suggestion to redirect to Santa, Idaho, but no consensus (or even discussion) on that. If somebody wants to add this to Santa, Idaho and redirect there, they can do that on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renfrew, Idaho[edit]

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

We haven't had as many problem rail points in Idaho, but there are a few, and Renfrew appears to be one of them. It's just a short ways down the road from Santa, and there's a construction business at the site which perhaps was put there to take advantage of the siding, but there's no sign of any accompanying settlement except a cemetery (which is unnamed as far as I can tell, and which may have been built to serve Santa). It's a little heard to search due to a prominent academic, but I couldn't find any reference to it as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even on 58 topo, does not appear to be a separate community in 63 topo. Newspaper results are all names, nothing with Santa or railroad keywords. Reywas92^Talk 06:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

In 2015, the Idaho Legislature stated "several areas of Benewah County, though unincorporated, have rich histories and vibrant communities including Chatcolet, DeSmet, Emida, Fernwood, Parkline, Renfrew and Santa."
Benewah County's Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan Update 2012 states:
Several other 'populated places' are scattered around the county with groups of home structures ranging from a dozen homes, to hundreds of homes in these unincorporated population clusters. These population clusters include Emida, Fernwood, Renfrew, Santa, Carpenter Creek, Desmet, Benewah, Chatcolet, St. Joe, Ferrell, Highland Springs, Hells Gulch, Mowry, Cherry Creek, Alder Creek, and Elkhorn.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists Renfrew as a city here.
This original research shows the community of Renfrew exists and has a cemetery. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read these sources at all? The NHTSA may supposedly list it as a city, but Pocatello Municipal Airport, Penitentiary Spur, Anderson Dam, and Nez Perce National Historical Park are apparently cities now too! I just don't get this concept that we need an article for every set of "a dozen homes" on the planet. The other items on the list of "clusters" are largely not notable places either needing their own articles either. Is this Maggie Rail a reliable source, or did she just write down the name on the map? For god's sake, if Renfrew had "a rich history", where is it?!? Reywas92^Talk 06:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, only the last presents any substantial evidence. The first is a purely ceremonial resolution which cannot be taken as representing any sort of neutral reporting, while the second even puts "populated places" in quotes, implying simply reading of a list of such places from GNIS; the third is simply a list of values to enter on a form and doesn't imply that anyone checked to see that this list of names were "cities" or even anything other than a dot on a map. Now, the last one is more interesting, but again it really doesn't get us to any real evidence of a settlement. It says that the cemetery served Santa and Fernwood, but it only says it was located in Renfrew, that it calls it a "community" really begs the question, as the only thing there is the lumber yard mentioned in the directions. How did this person know that it was a "community"? Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:EXISTS, but no evidence of notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether Renfrew satisfies WP:GEOLAND, not whether it exists. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa, Idaho. It shows up on Google maps, and the Idaho Legislature mention is something, perhaps a "Legally Recognized Place", and therefore outright deletion isn't helpful to a reader, whom it is not hard to conceive may look for information on this defined location. However, I've spent some time looking for this through newspapers.com and archive.org, and not a single instance shows up, indicating that it isn't notable by normal standards or by GEOLAND. I'd add a sentence into the Santa article describing Renfrew as a named place outside of/next to Santa. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giveout, Idaho[edit]

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

This one is a bit of a puzzle, not helped by a Giveout Creek in BC which generates a lot of false GHits and it being another odd "town" name. The oldest topo map I can find shows "Giveout (site)" at this location, but I cannot find anything that gives any indication of what kind of facility or whatever it was the site of. There is a USDA climate station in the immediate area, and apparently someone collected butterflies and perhaps other bugs in the area, and there are references to a "Giveout anticline" which I'm not sure whether refers to this locale or the BC one. But there is just nothing here except a side road which goes up into the forest and turns into a dirt track which connects to the next road over. I cannot find any reference to it that says it was a settlement or does anything except refer to it as an area on the map or comment on the oddity of the name. Perhaps those adept at searching newspapers can find something but I'm loathe to keep this without better verification. Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to a whole lot of newspaper hits (it regularly advertised in the Montpelier Examiner), Giveout was a travelers' camp and ranch in the early twentieth century, but there's no indication that it was ever a populated place (or an especially notable campsite). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may have been something here, but there's no sign that that something was a notable populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sigcov, no basis for "is an unincorporated community" claim. Listed as a ranch and camp. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N and specifically WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. – bradv🍁 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Clarke White (dermatologist)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Many people teach, even at Ivy League institutions and get elected to organizations such as a national academy of arts and sciences but that in and of itself does not make them wiki worthy. For example, I belong to Mensa which by definition means I can verify my IQ is in the top 2%. Great, I’m smart. But I’ve done nothing to deserve an article about me.

And that’s my point. If this guy has done anything fascinating, it is in that four page long obit that was referenced in an edit summary and nothing was put in the article to indicate why he belongs here. Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s your opinion I’m boasting. But your critical analysis skills can use some work. As has been stated to me many times, simply existing doesn’t merit a wiki article. Simply belonging to a certain organization does not merit an article. The point, IMHO, of a wiki article is to teach people something. To be a basic lesson on the subject. NOTHING in this article tells me anything that differentiates him from the countless Harvard affiliated physicians I’ve met in my almost thirty years of living in the Boston area. If it isn’t in the article, as far as I am concerned, It doesn’t exist. Tell me what he did to gain acceptance to the Academy. If the sole criteria is his position at Harvard, then every faculty member should have a wiki page yet they don’t. So, I’m the article talk about his pioneering research, his publications, his awards, whatever it is that distinguished him from other dermatologists. Otherwise he is no different that my last dermatologist that I saw at a community based hospital.

The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to share information on the article’s subject, not to hide it and only let an enlightened few in on it. Significantly improve the article and I will change my opinion. Because I am as wise as I am smart! ;).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PROF 3 as an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. GNG doesn’t matter as PROF is explicitly set up as an alternative to the GNG as confirmed in RfCs and as noted in WP:N: a subject must either pass the GNG or an SNG. The PROF pass is enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ridiculous nomination, at time of nomination obviously passes both WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C3, no valid deletion rational given (instead the deletion rationale appears to mostly consist of off-topic boasting by the nominator). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:PROF#C3. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C3. WP:BEFORE is an important step in the AfD process. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speed Keep Obvious pass of PROF even from the sources in the article when nominated [1]; if the nominator can't access the sources they could have simply asked.
- If it isn’t in the article, as far as I am concerned, It doesn’t exist – Nominator needs to read and absorb WP:BEFORE before making any more nominations. That's not optional. By nominator's reasoning all stubs would be deleted.
- I belong to Mensa which by definition means I can verify my IQ is in the top 2% – Well, see, I'm in the top 0.05% (plus I earned a Good Posture Certificate in 8th grade) which makes me smart enough to know that Mensa exists to act as a marker for people who are smarter than your average bear, but still not smart enough to know not to embarrass themselves by joining it (or at the very least not to say so if through some inadvertence they do join it).

E Eng 05:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes PROF #3. Almost certainly also passes PROF #5, as pretty much all professors in those days held established chairs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That last bit you said isn't true, actually. But I'm beginning to get the vague feeling that this article will be kept. E Eng 14:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it is. The concept of personal chairs wasn't around until the latter part of the 20th century. Before then most university departments only had a single professor who held an established chair (i.e. one that always existed but was only held by one individual at a time, as opposed to an academic simply being granted the title of "professor" for their long service and distinguished career). We're only talking "full" professors here, of course. I'm British, so as far as I'm concerned lesser academics aren't in any way professors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you meant a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment as called for by PROF #5. Now I see what you're actually talking about (I think) but those don't always qualify as named/distinguished. E Eng 16:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon! In fact, such named chairs were fairly uncommon everywhere at the time, so this still applies. It covers most established chairs at major universities. If White held the Chair of Dermatology at Harvard, as he appears to have done, then he would certainly be covered. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Man, these rules sure are convoluted. So maybe it really means "in countries where, or at times when, named chairs [etc etc]" (not that I'm suggesting such a change be made)? (You do realize, BTW, that I'm not arguing for deletion.) E Eng 17:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets PROF. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Golf and Country Club[edit]

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

Delete. This page read like an ad, it was all promotional fluff. When that fluff was removed it was too bare to warrant an article. Seems to not meet notability standards. Delete! Locochoko (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources or notability since February 2009. Analog Horror, (Speak) 21:46, 17 March 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 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Golf clubs and country clubs, even large ones with 27 holes, are run of the mill. I don't see anything special about this one, and nothing to show it passes WP:GNG. The "awards" it got are merely listings by unreliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 23:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Baker[edit]

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

Non-notable promotional article deleted already on ar.wiki, who are more qualified than us to judge the sourcing. The sources are self-published or otherwise unreliable/unrelated to the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and all sources are fake (any one can create such links about himself) --Alaa :)..! 21:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources are unreliable.

Here's an explanation:

1. Cites a Google search, not reliable

2. WP:CITEIMDB

3. Page is just a collection of his books with no biographical information

4. Spam site for autobiographies

5. Citation only has one sentence.

6. Award with no information about Maher

7. Award with no information about Maher

8. Primary source written by the author

9. Citation only has one sentence

10. Page is just a collection of his books with no biographical information

11. Citation only has one sentence

12. Primary source written by the company itself

13. Primary source written by the company itself

14. Doesn't even mention Maher or any of his companies

15. Doesn't even mention Maher or any of his companies

So basically it is an unreliably sourced article, so I vote for deletion. Analog Horror, (Speak) 23:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Analog Horror: NO.4 "is self-published site that’s mainly used to provide cover for autobiographies and other such spam." We already put it on spam list on arwiki, and soon on enwiki --Alaa :)..! 00:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@علاء: Alright, I added it to the list now, thanks for letting me know. Analog Horror, (Speak) 00:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find anything to substantiate notability. GNG fail. Netherzone (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:REFBOMBed article that fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Freezing Fog[edit]

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

I PRODed this but deprodded by Atlantic306. I don’t think this passes WP:BAND. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why I deprodded was the reference to an article in Kerrang magazine which is a reliable source, but its an offline reference and if the band was covered by them it may have received further coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBAND. One article in one printed magazine is not significant coverage. I don't see any evidence of tours outside of England and Wales, nor of charting. Ping me if you find anything verifiable. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sockpuppet votes have properly been stricken. BD2412 T 21:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Only a Few Ever Find It[edit]

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

No indication of independent notability / in-depth coverage, should be redirected to artist. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything with a quick Google search. https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/8525779/gerald-walker-win-streak-video-premiere mentions it, but it's not WP:SIGCOV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: should be redirected to Gerald Walker, and indeed the nominator and myself have done so several times, but the two Gerald Walker SPAs (who have suspiciously similar user profiles) keep reverting the redirect. I noted on their talk page that one of them has a username (Osatmusic) which is the same as Walker's record label (One Step at a Time, aka OSAT Music). Richard3120 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I created this article one day after reading it under the "news' section on the Billboard website. The problem with the nominators interpretation of WP:SIGCOV is that the subject isn't a mere trivial mention but more of an edict by Billboard themselves. The additional cites are actual credits from music aggregates. Furthermore, the nominators choice to delete seems more emotional motivated than the commentators. Secondly and tertiary if articles from music industry leading publications such as Billboard and Rolling Stone aren't enough to establish standards for "verifiability and notability", listed in WP:NALBUM then I truly don't know what is. For at a very minimum the article does "document that the criterion is true". Krealkayln (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC) crossing out sockpuppet account. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an in-depth review. This is a promo blurb. Good luck convincing anyone that the latter constitutes "significant coverage". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krealkayln, not only is the Billboard article you mention (here [2]) nothing more than a promotional push for the video, it's about the song "Win Steak", not this EP... the only mention of the EP is its name, that it will contain four tracks, and its release date. None of that is enough to make it notable and anywhere close to passing WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, You stand on WP:NALBUM to substantiate your claim, however, both articles definitely proves verifiability and-arguably- proves notability. The examples you provide contrasting a music REVIEW via "EW" then an article of 'breaking and entering' isn't an equivalency. If I cited This EW article on John Legend's Wikipedia article regarding his forthcoming album... would it not be an sufficient enough cite? Furthermore, is Billboard not as noteworthy as EW? The only reasonable user making a modicum of sense is Richard3120's assertion of the song "Win Streak", significant coverage and not the album itself. But his proposal isn't to delete but to redirect; which is stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krealkayln (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Krealkalyn – no, the EW article wouldn't really be a good citation. All it says is "John Legend has a new album coming out in 2020"... without a name or release date, let alone any concrete details about the album, the information is trivial and not useful. Anyway, your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – as noted, it would be a better argument for redirecting any article about an unnamed future John Legend album than for keeping the Gerald Walker EP. Richard3120 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Interesting takes on both sides. In terms of Richard3120 last response he says “wouldn’t [really] be a good cite” which comes across as ambiguous in theory. Although anecdotal, I’m pretty sure it would be an acceptable cite for that wiki article. Just my two cents. I vote keep. osatmusic (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — osatmusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. obvious sock struck out --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would be better off explaining why you and Krealkalyn have identical user pages, right down to the articles you have apparently created independently. Should I open a sockpuppet investigation? And also why your username is the same as that of Gerald Walker's record label... Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

label...

Richard3120 Elmidae Not Entirely and you two continue to move the goalpost and provide false equivalencies instead of providing cogent arguments against the subject at hand. Furthermore, I edited the death of Roger Mayweather yesterday which therefore put this discussion even occurring in my purview. So I vehemently reject the notion that I don’t edit outside of the subject. Please stick to your points and stop waiving false flags.Osatmusic (talk) Osatmusic (talk 22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "false flag"? The fact is that you and Krealkalyn have identical user pages and claim to have created the same articles. It is also a fact that before yesterday's edits to Roger Mayweather, the last time you made an edit to an article that had no connection to Gerald Walker was in 2011. And we already have provided a cogent argument against the subject – the EP does not pass WP:NALBUM, because there are no in-depth, reliable sources that discuss it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NALBUM. Richard3120: either launch a Sockpuppet investigation or don't, there's no point just making threats about it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Krealkalyn and Osatmusic have both been indefinitely blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of the same editor. Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 23:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Connolly (Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county-level politician and fails WP:GNG as the subject doesn't appear to have received more than routine local coverage. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked online and only saw routine, local coverage. If you find significant coverage, can you please ping us? Bearian (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian I found this Associated Press report but even then it focuses more on the state senator who stepping down to replace Connolly and while it is in the AP system it's doubtful the report circulated in any outlet outside of its Boston-area members. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County treasurer is not an "inherently" notable office for the purposes of WP:NPOL — it could get him in the door if you could write and source a substantive article that effectively contextualized his political significance, but is not an automatic freebie just because it's possible to write "he exists, the end" and single-source the fact to a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is his successor. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete County treasurers are not inherently notable. This is part of Dedhamania. We are going to see about as many Norfolk County related deletion discussions as we have seen for local Louisiana politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:SNOW. "It's dead, Jim." Bearian (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. County treasurer is not a notable post. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Unapologetic Black Thoughts[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The only online sources that talk about the album in depth appear to be hip hop blogs, such as the FlowForDays blog cited in the article. The best reviews of the album appear to be in Hip Hop Heads [3] and Spitfire Hip Hop [4], but it's debatable whether these websites meet WP:RS... they both appear to solicit contributions for marketing purposes. The only reliable source currently in the article is Respect magazine, and the link is simply for the video for one of the album's songs, with no detail about the album. There is no redirect target because the SPA who has created this article is still in the process of an article for the artist, and it's not guaranteed that the artist article will pass the draft review – however, I don't think an A9 speedy will apply here, given the claims of importance in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete A9 -- I agree with the nominator. The album has only been mentioned in blogs that are probably solicited, and other self-promotional outlets. Also there is not yet an article on the rapper, so this album should be considered non-notable until the rapper satisfies notability requirements as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 23:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas J. Köstenberger[edit]

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

I looked for independent reliable sources covering this subject in-depth, but came up empty handed. The best source I could find was only a passing mention in the NYT, in a brief about his daughter's wedding. Everything else appears to be either unreliable or primary sourcing. If other sources can be found, I'd be glad to see them and would withdraw this. But as of now, after my checks, I do not think this should be retained. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's absolutely nothing in newspapers.com. I haven't checked JSTOR. Google Books is a difficult search, as he has 1. authored so many books 2. been a consultant on so many books. I've found some publications that seem to be *about* the topic which may or may not be of use. [5], [6], [7], [8]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finding those! Some appear to meet the standard for coverage there, but I do not know how reliable those publishers are considered in this context. So, I will leave it up to whoever else reviews this AFD to decide if those can be considered reliable or not. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the user, User:Coffee, I respectively disagree about how he came up empty-handed when looking for sources. There were plenty of sources added to the article from institutions to notable book publishers to news outlets. Just because nothing can be found in NYT is not an adequate reason to claim the article was not sourced properly. There was an adequate number of footnotes and references that showed the information to be reliable. The user, Coffee, even took down information such as institutions Dr. Kostenberger's has attended and taught at. This seems to be an unreasonable measure. I would request that this article not be deleted. Furthermore, I request that my previous version, that is much more accurate and full, be restored. Quinnmosier (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is unstable right now. It is hard to get a good idea of exactly what we are supposed to be evaluating. It seems that he almost meets the notability guidelines with these third-party references:[9] [10]. But you need three. If Quinnmosier can find maybe a book review of one of his books published by someone not in his academic institution, then you would be able to demonstrate notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article shows that he is a prolific author, and so is notable as such. Theological publications are probably not much covered in the mainstream new media, which may be why the nom found nothing there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I trust the input of Peterkingiron and others as to the reliability of the additional sources found. Therefore, I see no use in keeping this open. Thanks to all who contributed their time! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoranjan Thakur[edit]

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

Recently created article about non-notable author-journalist. Fails WP:GNG. Gazal world (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that article creator has moved the page to Draft:Manoranjan Thakur after Afd. --Gazal world (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the draft no sign that this person is notable in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Given the editor who created it also just created Chaudhary Kedarnath Thakur and then overrode my attempt to draftify my guess is that this is the work of someone trying to promote his non-notable relatives. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikio Tachibana[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines, no coverage found. Less Unless (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing a BEFORE search, I was unable to find anything that substantiates notability. Fails GNG & NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nanning[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Zhengzhou (October 1929) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Heishiguan although by a different contributor, the only source appears to be a primary source Taiwanese book without page number. I am not able to confirm that the battle occurred. This RS book implies that it didn't. b uidhe 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, possibly a skirmish. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suspect that the civil wars of the interwar Chinese warlords are of little interest to PRC historians, though possibly to those of Taiwan, which claims to be the Republic of China, so that this is its history. It would probably be better if the author could be persuaded to write a single article on the conflict (war) in question, to which articles on individual battles (or skirmishes) could be redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: This battle (and the others) is supposed to be part of the Central Plains War, but there is no mention of it (or any of the others) there. We would need to have verifiable source that this battle actually occurred to add it to the main article and keep this as a redirect. b uidhe 20:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:V and WP:RS issues. Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar articles by this editor about doubtful battles. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle York (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This is a basically promotional autobiography. The NYT material is mentions; the other references are either to his own writings or to promotional interviews or notices. I don't think there would be enough left to write a NPOV article. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A lot of WP:REFBOMB and not much substance. Alpateya (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:REFBOMBed article likely created for web presence-boosting purposes. Fails WP:GNG as there isn't much there after taking a deeper look into the sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. He's an investor, a run of the mill person who puts money into things. That's in no way notable or creative. Everybody does it today. If this had been created in 2007, I could excuse it and assume good faith, but this is 2020, and everybody and their kid knows we are not a free web host and this is plainly a reference-bombing attempt to spam us. As I tell my students, I was born on a Monday, but not last Monday. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill entrepreneur and investor. We'd need to see better coverage for an article. Possibly an autobiography. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mastin Kipp[edit]

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

This article cites lots of sources, but they seem to be interviews with the subject rather than independent reliable sources writing about him. I have been unable to find any better sources in my searching. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not actually meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 23:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Robinson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NTRIATHLON. Less Unless (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS Rogermx (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Arbault[edit]

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

This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:GNG a search for sources only provides Wikipedia mirror copies of this article. Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a photo of him with Thom, Serre, and Reeb in the Notices of the AMS (August 2000), p. 761 (the same one we have here). MathSciNet lists seven publications from 1943 to 1957 (all single-authored), and Google Scholar lists 5 citations for one of them and 44 for another. That's not enough to form the basis of a verifiable article and it's not enough for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As argued in the !vote above, he doesn't appear to attain wiki-notability as an academic. In addition, the term "Arbault sets" does not appear to be widely used among mathematicians. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopic ratio outlier analysis[edit]

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

No evidence is presented that this is a notable scientific technique. The sources are primary literature from the inventor and from a commercial enterprise. Tdslk (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like most of it is copyrighted content from the website linked in the article. Thtatithticth (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. Interesting as this looks, we just don't publish original research, and we strictly apply copyright law -- and in 2020, everybody knows that. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar Rai[edit]

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

I am nominating this article because too many editors are abusively tagging the article. Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete below the level that would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails notability Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and BIO. Nothing here to warrant a standalone page on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 04:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personally I think G5 could possibly have been a legitimate CSD for this article under IAR (the only substantive edits by anyone other than Rohitmishra01 were removals of promotional content and copyright violations, rather than content additions), but I welcome the decision to AFD it again. As the VC of a central University he passes WP:ACADEMIC, and there are probably enough valid sources in Hindi to pass WP:GNG as well, but I would still support the deletion of this page under WP:TNT in order to be sure than any article we do end up having on him is free from sockpuppetry and (probable) UPE issues. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also thought this could of been speedy deleted, had the same concerns as what everyone else has written above. Govvy (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PeerPong[edit]

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

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Moreover the service is inactive, the webpage domain is for sale, some refs are dead. Less Unless (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Didn't achieve much coverage when it was alive, now it seems to be dead altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct company and it doesn't seem to have any historical significance to keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a defunct company, whose existence appears to have been covered only by initial proposition descriptions and funding announcements. The article mentions staff moving on to work at Formspring but redirect to Spring.me eems too much of a stretch. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Bottle Crossing, Idaho[edit]

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

One hates to be a killjoy to collectors of weird town names, but this is another case of a name copied mindlessly from a map without looking at it. There is in fact no evidence that this was ever a populated place, even by the loose standards of GNIS; there is just nothing in the area of the spot designated but trees, hillside, forest road, and a creek. And I can find nothing that indicates there was ever anything there, even accounting for the likelihood that the location is a bit off. This one generates a huge mountain of false hits based on its inclusion in lists of goofy town names, and some sites claim that there is a lodge here, but from what I can tell it's on the opposite side of Cascade Lake; at any rate there are no buildings in the area. Book hits are unusually scanty and contain nothing official outside of gazetteer entries. It actually disappears from the topos for a few editions before it gets stuck back in, presumably from GNIS. In the end, the only thing I can find out about it is that it was a name on a map. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The place does not actually exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, older USGS topos had a lot more detail, showing buildings and landmarks with colors and whatnot; newer ones have much fewer labels, with places apparently auto-generated from what they've got in the GNIS (e.g with [11] marking the RR spurs of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington still). The 2004 topo shows this in the sans serif font used for certain non-populated features. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very likely a paper town or copyright trap that never existed but was accidently picked up as an actual settlement. Nate • (chatter) 22:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of a populated place, my best guess would be that it refers to a nearby stream crossing. –dlthewave ☎ 14:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N and specifically WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No significant coverage found. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unity is Strength (Australia)[edit]

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

The only source is something called "The Institute of Australian Culture" [12], a Wordpress site. I can't find anything showing notability, but there is a Stormfront post[13] saying "Are you aware of an old Australian Nationalist song that has been suppressed for over a century called "Unity is Strength"? I have contacted Onenation.com but they are exceedingly slow to post this important song on the Internet - so I am asking for your help in promoting this important song. The tune is the same as "Men of Harlech" (the song from the "Zulu" movie we all love). I think this would make a great song for White Nationalist worldwide if the lyrics were adjusted for that purpose. The current lyrics pertain to Australia in the late 1800's are are printed below. Please help me with this mission, Comrades!!!" Doug Weller talk 14:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I won't even get into the erroneous way the subject is described in this stub, as I can't find any indication of notability. Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is evidence that the song was published in 1898: [14], but no evidence that it was ever noticed enough to confer notability. It appears that "Unity is Strength" is a common slogan in Australian history, and that shows up in searches, but I can find no commentary on this song except from the shady organizations detected by the nominator. Let's add Wikipedia to the conspiracy of websites that refuse to allow idiots to fantasize that an unknown song from 122 years ago was written about them and how its suppression is holding them back from greatness. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my comment above may have polluted the ensuing discussion so I struck it out. My vote remains the same, although we can see below that the song has some additional notice in Australian history. If that helps with notability, the article needs serious expansion beyond a mere mention of the song's existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single sentence for the whole entry! Topic is too specific and brief to devote a page to this. Teraplane (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Keep because at this point more searching needs to be done I think. I was going for delete, but I was surprised by what is actually reported. As per DOOMSDAYER520's ref there is a lot of reporting around 1898/99. Not sure why but on a hunch I looked a bit further and there is multiple reporting aorund 1901, eg,^[1] and around 1903, eg,^[2] and around 1910, eg,^[3] and around 1940, eg,^[4]. Weak because all I could find so far are essentially mentions, and while they demonstate sustained, and probably another two short sentences could be added to the article based on such as the above, there is nothing anywhere near in-depth so far. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "THE ROYAL VISIT". Weekly Times. Victoria, Australia. 27 April 1901. p. 25. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.
^ "SCHOOL CONCERT". Newcastle Morning Herald And Miners' Advocate. New South Wales, Australia. 14 December 1903. p. 6. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.
^ "North-Western News". The North Western Advocate And The Emu Bay Times. Tasmania, Australia. 18 March 1910. p. 2. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.
^ "WARD'S RIVER". Dungog Chronicle : Durham And Gloucester Advertiser. New South Wales, Australia. 1 November 1940. p. 3. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this song, written in 1898, appears to have been written to further the case for Federation, the lyrics were reproduced in full at the time in numerous newspapers, especially in Victoria, including Weekly Times here, The Herald here, Colac Herald here, The Robertson Mail here, Broadford Courier and Reedy Creek Times here, Gippsland Times here, so appears to be well known at the time, but apart from the mentions found by Aoziwe above, there doesn't appear to be much else. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - coolabah is closer to the mark, by actually using what should be used for australian items (Trove) - it would be the possibility of an editor who can think sufficiently sideways to find an existing article in which the material could be productively placed before the inevitable google emptiness takes over and it is deleted... JarrahTree 09:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment - I'm sure another comment here doesn't help much, but I voted above. Given this discussion, it appears that "Unity is Strength" is well-known political slogan in Australian history, used in many environments including this song. Therefore there could possibly be an article on the slogan, but focusing on this particular song may be the wrong way to go. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am practicing interpreting consensus and by no mean to imply my interpretation has any power in the actual closing. Closer please go ahead to conduct your own interpretation and action. Here I interpret the consensus to be a delete for lack of evidence of notability. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar Natiq[edit]

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

There is not enough coverage in WP:RS. He is a poet, but not well known enough for an article. Most (if not all) mentions are passing and trivial in nature. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Finland, Ottawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3D Printer Chat[edit]

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

The content of the article is quite unreliable and the content mainly cites primary sources. It also uses YouTube as main reference. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found no independent sources, no significant coverage. The refs are all user generated. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Less Unless (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant independent coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‘Soft Power Pipelines Diffusion’[edit]

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

Fresh-off-the-press, single-paper neologism with no further uptake. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. Fails WP:NEO. b uidhe 03:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Moore (property investor)[edit]

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

Little reputable online coverage about him, all the coverage that does exist online is from blogs and small local news sites. Also written like an advertisement.

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG James Richards 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. James Richards 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. James Richards 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. James Richards 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. James Richards 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete looks like blatant self promotion. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly created for promotional purposes. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete WP:RESUME Alpateya (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De;ete per WP:GNG. First off, investing in real property is about as mundane as you can get. Secondly, getting into the Guinness Book of Records isn't what it used to be. Third, to re-write this overly promotional article would take many hours. Fourth, we are not a resume service, and in 2020 everybody knows that. Finally, there is not enough coverage about him to write a NPOV article. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Powers (mayor)[edit]

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

Being a mayor is not a default sign of notability. We have nothing here that would come even close to showing the passing of GNG. I was looking for sources, but what I came up with were his LinkedIn page, a blog run by the local newspaper giving the history of all the mayoral races for the last decade or so from when it was written, ad passing mention in a local newspaper. Nothing that adds up to the level of coverage to show notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spokane per WP:CHEAP. I deprodded this because, I thought, surely he would pass WP:NPOL as the first strong mayor of a city of 240,000 and former host to the World's fair. I don't have strong feelings. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The following is the coverage of Powers I've found:

An article in BizJournals about Powers [15].
Five articles in The Spokesman-Review [16][17][18]. At least two of these articles I would consider undeniably about Powers [19] [20].
A biography in on the Paulsbo Rotary Club (of questionable independence) [21].
Several articles in Spokane Journal of Business [22], at least two of which I would consider undeniably about Powers [23][24]
Article in Inlander (newspaper) in part about Powers' mayoral race [25]

I see no reason why the fact of The Spokesman-Review or Spokane Journal of Business being local should disqualify them as reliable sources. According to the The Spokesman-Review's Wikipedia article, It has the third highest readership among daily newspapers in [Washington] state. userdude 04:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per userdude. In addition to those sources, I also found this article in the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin which is entirely about Powers. There are also a number of other articles in the Union-Bulletin and the Centralia Chronicle which mention Powers, and per the GNG, the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Surachit (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. A. Q. Khan Institute of Technology & Management[edit]

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

Non-notable institute, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. Unrferenced and unable to confirm by using reliable sources. Ping me if you find anything. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it; there is simply no indication that this institution satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Regards, MBlaze Lightning 16:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow fish[edit]

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

It is unclear just what fish is being referred to here; the article is apparently about the etymology of a corporate name of a non notable company DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not identifiable and not sourceable, sufficient reason for deletion. If DGG's suggested origins are correct, it's also cause for robust action against abuse of Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this is a notable term. Not possible to merge or redirect as it looks like "snow fish" is used about different species [26] [27]. Sjö (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:COAT/WP:SPAM. This exists, but it's another name for a variety of Silver fish (fish). Right now we have spam that is using this page as a coat-rack for something else entirely. I would not oppose a redirect to the dab page I've linked, as long as it's move-protected. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting rather than redirecting given the potential non-notability of the artist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamer (Mister Speed album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Article was created in 2007 as a clear COI by User:Mrspeed, who also created the article on the album's singer, Mister Speed. Every reference or external link on the article is dead. (It might be worth questioning whether Mr Speed himself is actually notable as well.) Emeraude (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything at all to support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Herald was about all I found. Caro7200 (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khabaryar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the content has given priority mainly to the controversies connected to the television programme. Abishe (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Moth’u g here indicating notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NIIT Technologies. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whishworks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to NIIT Technologies: An article about a company, sourced to its vendor partnerships, market surveys, event listings, etc., which are defined as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find more notices of the acquisition by NIIT Technologies but nothing to indicate distinct notability. AllyD (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whishworks is a notable company. Its notability is justified by NIIT Technologies merger. It has enough references on trusted news websites.Niceguylucky (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan J. Orosa[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2006, I don’t think this subject passes WP:AUTHOR. The medal he won does not seem notable and I’m only finding online booksellers and catalogues as well as Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we put our foot down and deleted all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A strong CSD candidate Alpateya (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT. 14 year old spam we're still cleaning up. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Central Ohio Transit Authority Routes[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. No indication anywhere that these are notable routes Ajf773 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with the nom; Wikipedia is not a directory. MBlaze Lightning 16:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Central Ohio Transit Authority unless there is enough information to keep it in its own page; delete if not notable. This is less notable than the Cleveland transit system.Alexlatham96 (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Damm[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable military officer and publishing company executive. KidAd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 10 March 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article should have been expanded instead, and now has been. The main source is currently Norway's Who's Who since I don't have access to books right now. By the way, the publishing house in question was one of the big ones in Norway (Aschehoug, Gyldendal, Cappelen, Damm). Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't read Norwegian but the cited bios in Hvem er hvem? and Merkantilt biografisk leksikon strike me as sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and perhaps also WP:ANYBIO #3. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Geschichte's improvements. - Toughpigs (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parvati Sehgal (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NACTOR. The subject has appeared in only few television soap operas and reality TV shows and seems to be WP:TOOSOON. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has had several recurring roles in Indian soap operas—and I don't think soap operas are any less notable than any other television program; in fact, they probably reach a wider audience in some instances. I think the cumulative effect of these recurring roles is enough to make out WP:NACTOR. The subject also has a number of Times of India write-ups dedicated to her, most of which are already provided in the article, which go towards WP:GNG. So, overall, I think there is enough to merit a "Weak Keep" for this particular article. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the utter lack of independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Greece relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Article has one primary source which states relations are more in the EU-Colombia context. No agreements, embassies or state visits. Those wanting to keep should show evidence of actual coverage of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Trivial stuff, of minor significance -if any at all. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N. R. Parasuraman[edit]

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

Checked Google and the WP:PRIMARY sources in article, and the subject falls well short of WP:ACADEMIC. Dorama285 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like he has two books with multiple editions: Fundamentals of Financial Derivatives and Financial Management – a step by step approach. Perhaps WP:NAUTHOR? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to my eyes like he would fail criteria 2 through 4 of WP:NAUTHOR. That leaves #1 as the most viable option: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Thoughts or feedback? Dorama285 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Publishing multiple editions does not make a notable author. Delete unless anyone can find actual secondary sources. b uidhe 03:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. With multiple editions from mainstream publishers one would normally expect to find reviews in reliable sources. But I didn't manage to find such, and neither has anyone else in all the time this has been open. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multifunction platform[edit]

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

A ‘ multifunction platform’ is simply a diesel generator, used to power various labour-saving devices in the context of small scale local development projects. This much is just a dictionary definition. The article includes links to a number of instances of the term being used, but there’s little real encyclopaedic content. A general search for the term finds a variety of different an entirely unrelated meanings for the term, but very little supporting this article. My conclusion is that it lacks multiple reliable independent sources and is therefore not notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name certainly isn't great, it sounds like a bit of computing hardware, but the project is both worthy and widespread, and critically it has been discussed by newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor (sounds hokey but is a well-respected publication), technical websites like Tech monitor, commercial companies like AbzeSolar, independent national agencies like the United States Agency for International Development, and independent world agencies like the World Bank. Of course it's also cited by other parts and projects of the UNDP as well, as a long-lived and successful programme. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time with this one. On one hand, I'm seeing in several places that MFPs are just diesel engines subsidized through UNDP; elsewhere, it makes them sound like a technological innovation. Is this about a device or the program which distributes them? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pradesh Congress Committee. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Pradesh Minority Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Hemant Dabral^Talk 11:13, 9 March 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 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a merge tag on the article, this should be responded to before AfD. A merge with redirect makes sense.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Arora[edit]

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

Has a few GNews hits, but they are not significant. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is an experienced actor with significant starring or supporting roles in the following films (among others): Jab We Met, Khaidi No. 150, Katamarayudu, Jaya Janaki Nayaka, Kanchana 3 and Arjun Suravaram. Therefore, I think he passes WP:NACTOR. There are dozens and dozens of "google news" hits, with several articles from reputable sources providing significant coverage, such as:

→https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Cinema/2016-07-28/Tarun-Arora-to-play-a-baddie-in-Chirus-150th-film/245103 – The Hans India

→https://www.financialexpress.com/entertainment/my-role-on-the-lines-of-vijay-mallya-in-khaidi-no-150-tarun-arora/381810/ – Financial Times

→https://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/tarun-arora-calls-khaidi-no-150-his-dream-debut/story-8HzgXMijoZR0ARza5TFzUJ.html – Hindustan Times

→https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/010316/i-do-not-mind-being-typecast-tarun-arora.html – Deccan Chronicle

→https://www.hindustantimes.com/regional-movies/tarun-arora-to-play-the-villain-in-chiranjeevi-s-150th-film/story-jClBRqhkmXP0jLgRAzY88H.html – Hindustan Times

→https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Tollywood/2016-10-31/Khaidi-No-150-A-dream-debut-for-Tarun-Arora/261733 – Hans India

So, I think there's enough to pass WP:GNG as well. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation[edit]

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

The company existed, and there is coverage that it did, but nothing to establish notability StarM 02:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:GNG. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 02:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Woods, Indiana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Small subdivision/neighborhood/housing development within incorporated Shelbyville, Indiana [28]. Built between 1954 and 1962. Knowing what "Brent" came from is not significant coverage to pass WP:GEOLAND#2, every newspapers.com mention other than this address in the classifieds is someone whose name is Brent Woods or a Brentwoods clothing brand. Reywas92^Talk 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the origin of a place's name is certainly an encyclopedic bit. And the publication of a notable organization focused on history is certainly a reliable source. That provides all the notability required under WP:GEOFEAT. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source for that, on page 773/63 of the pdf. It’s half of a two-sentence bio about one of the members of the Indiana Daughters board, not remotely significant encyclopedic coverage nor editorially reviewed historic content. Reywas92^Talk 01:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a subdivision or neighborhood and per our guidelines it will need WP:SIGCOV to be kept per WP:GEOLAND#2. Brent woods may or may not be a notable fictional subject, however this article does not pass WP:N and the article exists as a WP:COATRACK Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subdivision fails GELOAND2 due to lack of significant coverage. The DAR source is an incredibly trivial mention. Most names have some sort of story behind them; this does not make them notable. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a non-notable subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it exists, GEOLAND does not overrule WP:SIGCOV, WP:V, or WP:GNG. Even a populated place needs to be verified by more than three extremely brief listings. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "THE ROYAL VISIT". Weekly Times. Victoria, Australia. 27 April 1901. p. 25. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[2] "SCHOOL CONCERT". Newcastle Morning Herald And Miners' Advocate. New South Wales, Australia. 14 December 1903. p. 6. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[3] "North-Western News". The North Western Advocate And The Emu Bay Times. Tasmania, Australia. 18 March 1910. p. 2. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[4] "WARD'S RIVER". Dungog Chronicle : Durham And Gloucester Advertiser. New South Wales, Australia. 1 November 1940. p. 3. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]