Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 March 23 March >

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. – bradv🍁 00:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional fishing tackle of Central India[edit]

Traditional fishing tackle of Central India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an essay rather than an article. Couldn't establish that it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic, it does not seem promotional but needs more references, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic, or send to draft until more third party sources are found. The article currently relies on a single source, a submitted (but possibly not accepted) 2007 thesis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it is a valid encyclopedic topic. Someone who can speak Hindi can find sources to add, or see what the Wikipedia in that language has on the subject. Dream Focus 17:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic which can be properly sourced with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:TNT. This is entirely sourced to a single source, possibly self-published. While this could be a notable topic, this article is a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article currently has its issues, but the history of fishing in India seems like an encyclopaedic topic to me. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Whether we consider a topic "encyclopedic" is not relevant (WP:ILIKEIT). What matters are the sources. And a single thesis, apparently not published or perhaps even accepted, is not enough of a reliable source to base a whole article on. Sandstein 08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion began with argument for "valid encyclopedic topic", and the counter-argument started to evolve. I believe this discussion is in the middle of forming consensus, and needs more time, hence the relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I don't know anything about international aquatic studies, so maybe I'm missing some reason why those aren't reliable sources, but I think this demonstrates notability of the subject. WP:NEXIST says that if reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't affect the notability of the subject. Problems with this article should be solved by normal editing, not deletion; I'll post these three sources in a Further reading section so that folks will have some resources to start with. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs: Great work digging up these sources to help improve the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a promotional piece of content. Its an informative article.Jai49 (talk) 10:11, 27 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jincheng Group[edit]

Jincheng Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly made, no references at all (but somehow lasted from 2009 to now?) Creator has also been given a warning about promotional content on another article. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/✏ 22:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/✏ 22:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/✏ 22:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Lack of WP:RS, I also conducted source in Chinese for baidu.com. My opinion is weak and could be convinced given the page seems established for more than a decade and have been contributed by multiple editors. I call for recent editors to join discussion. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No place for unsourced articles on corporations. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best, this would belong as a part of the AVIC article. I think the central relevant issue is notability--there seems to be very little mention of Jincheng in media coverage, and when it does appear, it is always with reference to AVIC. I cannot seem to think of a compelling reason that this subsidiary would need a separate article absent some indication of unique or separate corporate goals, branding identity, or political function as a state-owned enterprise, which my (admittedly cursory) research did not find. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Assuming there are few English language sources, it is still a large subsidiary corporation and should not be made to disappear. Deletion is the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. That should be a last resort. See WP:Before. This may be an example of a language problem, and Wikipedia systemic bias. Indeed, the one reference I just added establishes its international presence and notability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation The nominator created this article and then put links to various other articles linking to their company website and that's all they ever did. [1] So they work for this company. Dream Focus 14:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I agree that producing "half a million motorcycles to 50 countries" means its a wealthy enough company to be notable by reason of common sense. Also they get coverage for this feat. Dream Focus 15:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added large number of sources. Easily found. Meets WP:GNG. WP:Hey. Q.E.D., based on what's already there, nomination violated WP:Before 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sources that were added but do not see how any of them add up to WP:ORGCRIT. Could be an issue of not having English references (and having more in-depth coverage in non-English sources) but unfortunately I don't understand any other languages to check.CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: since being nominated, the article has been expanded and provided with several citations and a couple of images. I think it just about passes WP:CORP and is certainly better than many other corporate articles. ww2censor (talk) 12:16, 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Loveline games[edit]

List of Loveline games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic list of non-notable radio content. Fails WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "When Anderson, the show’s engineer, dislikes a caller or their story, he will drown them out by playing a fan-made remix of Psycho Mike’s spoof ballad..." WP:FANCRUFT] indeed. desmay (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FANCRUFT. No citations, and doesn't seem very encyclopedic or notable. It all appears, at a glance, to be unsourced original research and fansite material. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are other better sites to host this sort of thing. Our NPOV, NOTE, V and RS policies will conflict with the goals of the editors to detail the show. -- GreenC 03:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator. Jai49 (talk) 10:14, 27 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Beatz[edit]

Danny Beatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article is filled with unreliable sources that are either gossip blogs or promotional websites. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. The awards and nominations the subject has received are not notable. The subject is still an up-and-coming artist who has not made a mark in the Ghanaian music industry.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 00:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Farley[edit]

Cal Farley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find very much about Farley as pro wrestler. I see more about his ranch rather than his career. Maybe he is notable as businessman, but as pro wrestler, I don't know. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:12, 28 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 23:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Wintermann[edit]

David R. Wintermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG IW. (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 04:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Damskey[edit]

Kerry Damskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail ANYBIO and WP:WINEMAKER IW. (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:15, 22 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.  JGHowes  talk 01:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Security Industry Authority[edit]

Security Industry Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it’s a statutory regulator, obviously notable. Refs need improving. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-departmental public bodies of the United Kingdom government are inherently notable, and there will be plenty of coverage in trade publications. Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Statutory bodies of major countries are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 05:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongman Burner[edit]

Strongman Burner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article is filled with unreliable sources that are either gossip blogs or promotional websites. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. The awards and nominations the subject has received are not notable. The subject is still an up-and-coming artist who has not made a mark in the Ghanaian music industry. The page creator is notorious for creating articles about non-notable musicians.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:49, 22 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) 07:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amberwood, Arizona[edit]

Amberwood, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Amberwood II, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's a subdivision with no independent notability. For an example of a delete outcome for this kind of page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwood Estates, Arizona.

While not adjacent, it is nearby and it appears the same developer (Homes by Dave Brown) built it, so I'm adding Amberwood II, Arizona to this specific nomination. Apparently there were other Amberwood subdivisions around the Valley, too. Raymie (t • c) 20:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 20:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 20:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Subdivisions fail Geoland2. Reywas92Talk 00:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both NN subdivisions. According to the Maricopa County database, the is an Amberwood Manor and Amberwood Estates 2. Both are just neighborhoods defined by the builder when the area was platted. Fails GNG. MB 00:50, 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. – bradv🍁 00:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Mira, Arizona[edit]

Alta Mira, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a subdivision with no independent notability. For an example of a delete outcome for this kind of page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwood Estates, Arizona. Raymie (t • c) 20:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 20:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 20:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN subdivision. Fails GNG. According to the Maricopa GIS, Alta Mira is actually made up of Alta Mira 1, Alta Mira 1 Replat, Alta Mira 2, Alta Mirada Townhomes, Alta Mira 3, and an adjacent commercial area Alta Mira Plaza in Chandler, AZ. There is also a Alta Mira Estates in Mesa and Alta Mira at Rancho Santa Fe in Avondale. All of which are places defined by a developer when laying out lots and afterwards generally considered just part of their respective communities. MB 01:03, 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) 15:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THINK (mnemonic)[edit]

THINK (mnemonic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

neologism and article created to promote some consulting firm. Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources are reliable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you GPL93 for your comment about reliability of sources. I have updated references - including 3 books I found via google books. Can you re-review?
Cheers PiotrParadzinski (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This isn't a neologism though, this is a poster slogan that has been popular in school classrooms for a few years now, is taught in some childrearing books such as this one from 2013. However, there is no significant coverage of the slogan itself. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is posted in many schools in NYC, whether public, private, or charter, but I'm not sure it's notable. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 28 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 04:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padlist[edit]

Padlist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero independant coverage, not even passing mentions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:28, 22 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SubRip[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SubRip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much all the sources here are affiliated, unreliable, or passing mentions. I looked for better ones but didn't find anything I would call RS. It's possible the format is notable but even there I just find mentions, not substantive coverage - but there are sufficient namechecks that this may be a wheat vs. chaff issue. Needless to say, the article is full of personal observations. Guy (help!) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The software itself has only short namechecks, but the file format is ubiquitous and has short discussions in both in O'Reilly books [2] and scientific journals [3]. It's not major coverage, but it is in my opinion enough to demonstrate notability. Should possibly be renamed to .srt. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The status of the Wiki page is argueable, but the format itself is very important and deserves an own Wiki page. It is the only format Facebook allows for subtitle upload. In YouTube's list of supported subtitling formats, it is the first entry. Besides that SubRip is also the least common denominator when exchanging web subtitles/closed captions between different subtitling tools/editors. – Basic.Master (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 18:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep: For those not in the know, this is the .txt of subtitle formats. You could hardly write a book about this any more than you could about plain text files, yet we must have articles on both lest Wikipedia turn into a laughingstock regardless of the sourcing; call it WP:IAR if you want. Modernponderer (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Modernponderer, you know invoking IAR to keep an article with minimal sourcing is a bad look, right? Guy (help!) 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:JzG: Because of the very nature of this topic, the sourcing will always be sub-standard. Also because of the nature of this topic, Wikipedia must have an article on it. (Again, cf. text file, which nobody seriously considers deleting despite it being even more woefully undersourced. The major difference is that the average editor is more familiar with those, and thus aware of how ridiculous doing so would be.)
    Per WP:NOTBURO, it really shouldn't be necessary to cite policy in common-sense cases like this. But if you need one, that's what IAR is for. Modernponderer (talk) 20:36, 31 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. Redirect was suggested, but the subject is not mentioned at the proposed target article. MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven 13 Hustlaz Vol. 1 The Movement[edit]

Seven 13 Hustlaz Vol. 1 The Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this mixtape is notable per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. It did not chart in any notable list, and a Google search only brings up places to buy / listen to it. ... discospinster talk 18:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An apparent vanity project that has not been reviewed, much less noticed, by anyone outside the rapper's circle. The only sources found are typical retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lil' Keke: Only Discogs as its external source. Barely found anything about this mixtape. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:53, 31 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. Arguments to keep - even if it is ultimately cancelled - are stronger, and point out that in the past we have kept articles about cancelled events. Arguments to delete are based on assumptions of what may or may not happen. MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Scottish Premiership[edit]

2020–21 Scottish Premiership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Normally we would create an article for a forthcoming league season as and when teams secure a place in it, by winning enough points in the previous season. In theory three teams have done this so far, but the 2019/20 season has now been suspended due to the Coronavirus pandemic.

There is now a lot of speculation about what may happen, and therefore any assumption about who may have qualified for the next season is unsafe. WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree that CRYSTAL applies here, given current issues with coronavirus we don't know what will happen. GiantSnowman 17:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft I highly doubt they won't go a head with the league, I certainly disagree on a straight up deletion, there is a reason why we have "Draft space!". Govvy (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft per Govvy As they say, there's a reason "Draft space" exists, and six months will probably be long enough for the situation to resolve (based on my best Trump-like hunch). Let's re-assess it then. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has not been cancelled or postponed and we have several teams that we know will be part of it. Deleting now is premature as we don't now how long football will be stopped for.11cookeaw1 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has to be the most absurd and fear-mongering AFD nomination in the history of Wikipedia. We have sources and dates. I wouldn't be surprised if it's delayed - but seems highly improbable that it would be cancelled, and completely WP:CRYSTAL; to suggest that it would be without any sources. To imply that we'd still in lockdown a year from now is fear-mongering, and those that do this need to go somewhere else an calm down. Nfitz (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that a 2020/21 Scottish Premiership season won't happen. What I'm saying is that the assumption that it will happen in the same fashion as a normal season (12 teams playing 38 games each, running from early August to mid-May), is unsafe. Until we have clarity about how the 2019/20 season will be resolved then we don't know how the 2020/21 season will operate. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an argument to fix the content, not delete the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that WP:CRYSTAL applies, since the response to the coronavirus has cancelled virtually all gatherings. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are to be avoided but the 2020–21 Serie A article was kept after an AfD. 3 teams have qualified as it stands. Even if the season is cancelled it's still notable.Dougal18 (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I understand the rationale for the AFD, I think WP:Crystal is actually being misapplied here. CRYSTAL would be us trying to guess what is going to happen with the Scottish premier league before any formal decisions have been made and before any news articles have come out talking about this. Deleting the article now because of a possible future policy change would be a mistake. At most, we can draftify it but honestly there is enough content here to support an article. If anything does happen wrt COVID-19 it can be added to the article once it is corroborated by reliable sources; prior to that, what's the rush?? Michepman (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can see why people are saying keep, as at the moment this is scheduled to happen. The issue is there is now serious doubt that this will happen. It could be for instance that even if Football resumes in August it is decided to finish the 2019-2020 season and then have an alternate competition before restarting in summer 2021. Equally there is a serious possibility some clubs could fold which would have an impact on the viability of having a league under the current structure. Difficult decisions taken about promotion and relegation also mean there is a prospect of legal action which could cause further delay. Not really sure we have a good precedent for this. Very difficult call. Dunarc (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other point that I meant to add was some cancelled British sporting events like The Boat Race 2020 and 2020 Grand National still have articles to say they were scheduled events that were cancelled and I suppose if there is ultimately no 2020-2021 Scottish Premiership there could easily still be an article giving details of the cancellation and format the competition would have taken. Thinking further about this I would say I would Lean Keep as whatever happens there is a good chance there would be a rationale for having an article (and if need be this could later be made into a redirect to whatever competition does replace it or even to 2019-2020 Scottish Premiership). Dunarc (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (my bolding). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:13, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 05:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola Refreshing Filmmaker's Award[edit]

Coca-Cola Refreshing Filmmaker's Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable award designed for PR purposes Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis (organization)[edit]

Metropolis (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and fails to comply with WP:NPOV. The article clearly has been written as WP:PROMO. The content has been cited by only handful of sources which are bare urls. Abishe (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of creatures in Meitei folklore. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uchek Langmeidong[edit]

Uchek Langmeidong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason North8000 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As left at article talk page: Reviewed under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process

Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I just reviewed the article.

In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability (there are no applicable SNG's for fictional characters) The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. Of the three references given, at two there is no relevant material at all, and the third appears to be a story itself from folklore that contains this character. And without coverage, there is no sourcable material for a full article. I will be nominating the article for deletion so that the community may decide. I believe that the two sentences which this article consists of would be good to have somewhere in Wikipedia. Probably the best place is in the Manipuri mythology article which in Wikipedia terms means "Merge to Manipuri mythology. If a close on the AFD is headed towards this, and somebody pings me I'd be happy to copy/move that material. I also note that this article has previously been deleted. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of creatures in Meitei folklore – There is some secondary coverage in English sources [4][5] regarding the stepmother narrative from a social science perspective, but it's fairly minor and doesn't allow us to expand this article any further. The other contributions of this author (now blocked on his new accounts) will also need scrutiny, most are sourced to blogs. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of creatures in Meitei folklore As nom. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 26 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cascy Beddow[edit]

Cascy Beddow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography of an actor, unsourced except to IMDb (which is not WP:RS) since its creation in 2005. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better. He does not seem ever to have played a leading role (his IMDb entry for convenience). Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should really speedy delete all articles sourced only to IMDb. IMBd is not a reliable source. Sadly because of very lax inclusion criteria and other oversight in the past, we have almost become an IMDb mirror. This needs to be changed. Articles should not last 15 days in this state, let alone 15 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails many WP Criteria (mentioned by Narky). I don't understand why this subject has a wiki article and how it has lasted so long. TheAnayalator (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom. I find the pageview statistics surprising. Narky Blert (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't believe the subject has had enough significant roles in notable productions to pass WP:NACTOR, and I haven't found any sources which would go towards WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article had at least 3 links that did not go to the works in question but to other things with the same name. People need to check that links they create go the right place. How someone assumed colony would be about a film of that name instead of about the a colony itslef is way beyond me. Also assuming Jeremiah would link to a minor film of that name instead of the second most notable of all the Hebrew prophets baffles me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP is full of links like that, which is one reason why I often argue against creation of WP:PTOPICs. Who would have guessed that the primary meaning of TNT is not a TV channel and of PH is not a political grouping in Malaysia? I spotted those two within the last two weeks. Narky Blert (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. A redirect can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhampatty Rangaraj[edit]

Madhampatty Rangaraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The actor has featured in only one film and makes it WP:TOOSOON. Abishe (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Weak Delete or Redirect: While the subject is getting some coverage for his debut role, it seems that he has only performed in one notable production, which isn't enough to pass WP:NACTOR. If anyone can point me to evidence that he has more acting credits under his belt, I will happily update my vote. But, till then, I agree with the nominator—it's WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:56, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 17:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Suisse[edit]

Bitcoin Suisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be mainly WP:PROMO and does not seem to meet WP:GNG, because it doesn't look like there are multiple references that are independent, significant, reliable and secondary at the same time. Streepjescode (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a refbombing of press release churnalism and passing mentions? - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Gerard: I got the same impression. Are you voting delete or didn't you made a decision yet? Streepjescode (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't sure, 'cos I don't read German :-) I'll hit the translation sites and see what it looks like - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 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 delete as hoax ... discospinster talk 17:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Albania[edit]

Italian language in Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be part of a bizarre WP:HOAX campaign by several IPs and their (presumed) sockmaster to claim Italian as an official language in Albania, although it is not an official language in the country. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article. Not needed. New3400 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obnoxious vandalism joke. Not funny. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear WP:HOAX; the absence of references is not a surprise. Albania was an independent republic in 1930 and has never been a colony of Italy; who invaded it in 1939. Italian is not an official language of Albania.
Interestingly, some Albanian is spoken in Italy: Arbëresh language. Narky Blert (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 redirect to List of Jungle Junction episodes. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Junction (series 2)[edit]

Jungle Junction (series 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two episodes of the show have already had their pages deleted for fancruft and lack of notability, and just like what someone mentioned in their deletion discussions, I don't think it's best to redirect them, which I could have done right now, because they wouldn't be useful for redirects anyway. They also just repeat what's already on the main list of episodes. Thanks. 118.148.82.63 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:54, 22 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 redirect to List of Jungle Junction episodes. (non-admin closure) Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Junction (series 1)[edit]

Jungle Junction (series 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two episodes of the show have already had their pages deleted for fancruft and lack of notability, and just like what someone mentioned in their deletion discussions, I don't think it's best to redirect them, which I could have done right now, because they wouldn't be useful for redirects anyway. They also just repeat what's already on the main list of episodes. Thanks. 118.148.82.63 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After-close note IP initiated discussion, so redirection was not in their tool arsenal; Tyw7 did the appropriate thing despite the extra WP:BURO here. Nate • (chatter) 20:45, 22 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hizy Stone[edit]

Hizy Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails every criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom. The subject needs more than promotional news releases. Also the link to Peace & Love (2016) is not to a Wikipedia article but to YouTube that may be WP:COPYVIO issues. Otr500 (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much all coverage is from paid press. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:02, 30 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. – bradv🍁 16:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acheron Design[edit]

Acheron Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NCORP. On the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, there are total of 16 results (first it says 1,860 results, click on page 2 to see the real number), but they're mostly just passing mentions of the company. Like the Russian website Igromania, where Acheron Design is mentioned on page 2,697 of all games listed on the site, or page 76 of all PSP games, or the Brian Lara cricket games. The Kotaku AU is actually a link to another website, and an interview at that. In 2007, IGN UK reported that it was nominated for best start-up. Gamasutra says it received a "special commendation".

MobyGames' entry on the company has one game listed, and so does GiantBomb. The other developed game listed, Pony Friends 2, doesn't seem to be developed by Acheron Design either. At least, that's not what publisher Square Enix says on their website, apparently is developer Tantalus Media, also from Melbourne, Australia. I can't find any information on the other products listed. Like AFL DVD Trivia Challenge, BoardGameGeek has an entry on it, but it doesn't mention Acheron Design. As far as I can tell, Acheron Design has developed one game for sure, and that's it. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:34, 22 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. – bradv🍁 16:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compact area group approach[edit]

Compact area group approach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never mind that this is still written like a beamer presentation even after the last AfD. Whatever this is exactly, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable to write an article about. A single newspaper article can't really sustain this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: The previous AfD is under a different title at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compact area group approach (CAGA). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established, and nobody has cared enough to improve the article in more than a decade. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It has a few hits on Scholar and Book, but <10 each, and mostly related to the publications of the authors. Could consider redirecting to the article about the author, Abdul Kareem, he may be notable - citation count is not bad, also co-authored a lot: [6]. Unfortunately as the disambig shows it is a common name, so confirming his citation count is really his and not divided between several different people is a bit tough. If anyone wants to stub this, ping me and I can change my vote to redirect or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 26 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 23:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distelli[edit]

Distelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP since all the sources are trivial coverage of the subject and just discuss topics, like funding rounds and being acquired, that WP:NCORP says aren't notable. I couldn't find anything else on Google News either. Adamant1 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 22 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 Forced confession#Forced televised confessions in China. Since a logical redirect is proposed, this seems preferable to deletion. MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dahlin[edit]

Peter Dahlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

But for his forced confession on Chinese TV, the subject would not be considered notable. Indeed, there is nothing in the sources that indicate that the article was not based on one event. I therefore nominate the article for deletion.  Ohc ¡digame! 08:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or redirect to Forced confession Where he is already mentioned per notability guidelines about living people and single events. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. IW. (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 22 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) 09:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B.S.Pradeep Varma[edit]

B.S.Pradeep Varma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The article clearly has been written as a WP:PROMO and also fails to comply with WP:NPOV. The subject has only worked in only a handful of films including short films. Abishe (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete film directors are not always automatically notable just because their films exist. I originally redirected this page to Urvi (film) back in 2018, (see B.S. Pradeep Varma) and since then he has done nothing notable. GSS 💬 16:09, 26 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) buidhe 04:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Blake[edit]

Ruth Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG and the tone is unclear. The content has primarily been supported by bare URLs. Abishe (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 22 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. Still. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Luter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mick Luter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Survived AfD in 2013 and 2014 but I still can’t find reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be a respected Chicago rapper who has been written about by respected local Chicago sources. Not much beyond that, though... Caro7200 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the prior AFD pointed out some coverage this individual received some years ago in some of Chicago's newspapers, there does not appear to be any coverage beyond that. As mentioned above, he looks like he may have had some local notability within Chicago itself, but never garnered any kind of widespread notability outside of his home city. There is virtually nothing else I can find on him of any substance that has been written since then. Rorshacma (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is permanent. As I stated in the 2nd AFD, I stand behind my 1st AFD reasoning.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in regional reliable sources such as The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times so passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as not notable. As a BLP, I could not find enough significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, now and certainly not then, to back up claims of notability. One, and possible even two main sources, do not point that a subject is worthy of encyclopedia coverage and indicate the subject might be better represented in some parent article. I had to look back at the other AFD nominations since the mentioning editor's comments meant I had to. The previous nominations were not closed as clearly notable but as no consensus thus a default keep. What I found was mention of some sources (in the AFD's), that were dubious and long gone, and a search did not produce anything near the criteria mandated of being notable. While more local (not even really regional) coverage that is SUSTAINED gives a better indication of notability "just" one or two occurrences of being reported in a Chicago media does not in itself prove notability that we often cite as needing significant coverage in "multiple" reliable sources, because, coverage in a source specifically from the area of the subject (both that are listed), would be less than ideal for encyclopedic coverage alone as all things "Chicago" would be covered in them leading to source bias. Just because a subject receives "some coverage" does not mean they are notable for inclusion of a stand alone article. There is no timeline to expanding articles but when notability is contested, and a minimum search gives no positive results, the burden of proof would be on those seeking inclusion. This has happened multiple times with no improvements, and there are still several inline cite tags, that means at a point (likely long past) all that material could be removed leaving very little in the article. Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra comments: The Chicago Tribune source on the article is local coverage that includes a very clear promotional plug and COI concerning the supposed independence of the source. Wanting to keep the article as "all things Chicago", when the source for notability is a clear violation of policy, becomes an issue with inclusion that "must" be considered. There is a difference in a reliable source and a reliable source with an agenda beyond unbiased reporting. At the end of the article the "plug" is:
  • Mick Luter
  • No-holds-barred rap
  • When: 8:30 p.m. Tuesday
  • Where: Subterranean, 2011 North Ave.
  • Price: $10 (21+); 773-278-6600 or ticketweb.com
  • Clifton Roy & Folkstringer
  • Emo bluegrass?
  • When: 9 p.m. Thursday
  • Where: Otto's, 118 E. Lincoln Hwy., DeKalb
  • Price: $8 (21+); 815-758-2715 or ticketweb.com -- Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Have you ever read a newspaper? It is extremely standard practice for a newspaper covering a performer making a nearby appearance to list the relevant details of that appearance, including the cost and availability of tickets. It's no more a "promotional" plug or a conflict of interest than the New York Times, when it reviews a play, listing the theater where the play is being performed and the price of tickets. Virtually every newspaper running book reviews lists similar information about he book, including the publisher and list price. This argument is utterly, unredeemably ridiculous. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as not meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Passing mention, even in RSs, does not constitute significant coverage. This bio was first nominated for deletion in 2013. Seven years later coverage to meet inclusion standards is still lacking. The bio can be recreated if he meets it in the future. Blue Riband► 16:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 22 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KITCO India[edit]

KITCO India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company fails WP:GNG. Page fails WP:Advert. Survived first AFD thanks to a user named, oddly enough, after the company. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In the first AfD nobody appears to have paid any attention to the comment from that user. Nor is it "odd" that he was named after the company; part of the reason for the nomination was that "it has COI issues," and that user admitted that he was "from the company." Given that those issues were adequately dealt with then, with the consensus being (as PamD put it) that "this article [is] about a notable government body," the reason for renominating the article is unclear. Of course, the article is in poor shape, but that's not a notability issue; plenty of secondary sources exist (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4), and in fact, the article once had a number of sources (see article as it appeared during the last AfD), but these were removed for some reason last year. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a government body, it's a private company. Btw, the content of the article seems to be directly lifted from sources without them being summarized or attributed for it. For instance, the first part is directly taken from here (unless they copied from Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem they did). So, the article should be deleted on copyright violation grounds alone if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright infringement is possible, especially given the editor with a conflict of interest. But that line has been in the article since early 2011, whereas archive.org only has the site you pointed to as going back to 2017. At any rate, any infringement would be a reason to delete content from the article, but not the article itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the company isn't notable. Going over the sources provided by Usernameunique, the first and second articles are about company growth. Which isn't notable. The third article isn't in-depth coverage. As it is more about the CEO and only mentions the company in passing. Whereas, the forth is trivial coverage on a job search site. Which doesn't qualify either. As far as the other sources that where in the past version of the article, it's much of the same. Most of them are dead links and the few that aren't are just trivial coverage. Usernameunique really should have checked them before using them as a reason to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamant1, why are articles about a company's growth not notable? If anything, the fact that a news organization saw fit to write about a company's growth shows that the company is worth writing about—i.e., notable. And it takes a hefty stretch of the imagination to believe that an article titled "Calls for state takeover of Kitco gain momentum," is truly an article that "only mentions the company in passing"; indeed, the article is about the company's potential privatization, and the CEO—who isn't mentioned until the second paragraph—is only discussed in the context of his opposition to the idea. As far as the sources in the old version go, they were considered sufficient to establish notability the last time this was nominated for deletion, so why not now? The fact that the links are now dead does not change that—and had you looked, you would have seen that every single one is viewable on archive.org. Speaking of doing one's due diligence, next time you have useful advice about what I should or should not have done, please feel free to ping me. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usenameunique, I wasnt trying to critize your actions. So I apologize if it came off that way. On the growth thing, WP:NCORP says routine coverage includes "of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts." I try to stick to that for good reasons. Re copyright, "cleaning up" an article of copyrighted stuff by deleting large amounts of content usually causes the sources being deleted also. Most people arent going to take the time to rewrite things to spare the sourcing. Nor should they have to IMO. On the past RfD sources thing, are we not basing this RfD on our evaluations of the current conditions are is the purpose just to parrot back what a few people in 2011 said about it? Im not saying past states of things dont matter, but conditions change and I think the onus is on the original nominator to make sure the new AfD is appropriate. I just look at the state of current sourcing. Wading into other philosophical things like "dead links are still technically the existence of sources" is out of my peer view. Although, I am hardline about not creating or maintain a bunch of stub articles. Especially when it comes to companies. Sources only matter as providing content for an article IMO. Which dead links dont do. Articles arent bibliographies. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 22 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 and keep. Duncan found not to be notable - there was borderline consensus to delete and redirect even, while his theory was found notable but not of such notability as to confer notability to Dunacn. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Duncan[edit]

Richard C. Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible BLP sourced entirely from sources published by the subject of the article. No evidence that it meets the general notability guidelines. Seems to be known only for a self-promoted peak oil theory that itself was never particularly notable. Spasemunki (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Also nominating this related article which has the same sourcing and notability issues:[reply]

Olduvai theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A couple of these still have the self-reference problem- in the case of the obituaries, it's not clear that this was a news story vs. simply a notice that was supplied by the family and archived, and the alumni magazine is self-supplied and provides no meaningful biographic details. The Sakellariou book discusses Duncan's theory, but it seems most of the rest aren't much more than a footnote. The obituary does suggest this shouldn't be tagged as a BLP, though. --Spasemunki (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "most of the rest aren't much more than a footnote," are you talking about Duncan, or the Orduvai theory? In the first four articles I linked for the theory, it's pretty prominent: mentioned in the title of two ("Algeria energy production, population growth based on Olduvai Theory" and "The Olduvai Theory and Catastrophic Consequences"), and in the first two sentences of the abstracts for the other two. But yes, I agree that the alumni magazine and obit don't independently demonstrate Duncan's notability, though they could be used to build out his article. His notability is probably tied to the notability of his theory. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just Duncan- it seems there was more available discussing the theory than it initially appeared. If the additional references were incorporated into the article I would say it appears to solve the notability and self-reference problem for the theory article. The biographical article could be merged, but as it is no longer a BLP and we have additional sources I can see a case for keeping it as a stub. --Spasemunki (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, Spasemunki. I've added those five articles to Olduvai theory#Further reading; ideally they will be incorporated into the text, but for now, at least, they help demonstrate notability. I've also significantly expanded the article on Duncan, largely based on the Seattle Times obit. There's actually more there than I was expecting; in particular, his work on the "ORE Plan," which the obit describes as the first curbside recycling program in the United States, might be worth writing about (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4). But I think it probably works for now. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is only sourced to his work, so there is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if he is mostly known for a notable theory without sufficient coverage of him personally, then this should be a redirect to the theory. buidhe 05:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bio article The subject's sole claim to notability is the Olduvai Theory, so a personal page isn't warranted. As for Olduvai theory, my opinion is Keep. Despite being found incorrect, the External Links section now shows that it has been referenced by several others. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far we have delete for Duncan, but no consensus yet for his theory.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep theory article and Redirect Richard C. Duncan to it, seems that his theory has been referenced enough to merit an article. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, 1292simon, and Eddie891, if the Olduvai theory theory is notable, then why is Duncan not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernameunique, "notable" and "significant" are not synonyms. In my opinion, inherent notability for originating a new idea requires a higher level of significance than just to have an article on the theory. Einstein got a lot of coverage for his invention of general relativity (inherent notability), but this guy didn't have much coverage on him personally because his discovery was not that important. buidhe 19:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with Buidhe, and also add that the criteria you keep citing is explicitly stated to only be an indication of whether someone is likely to be notable for an article. ". . . meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." -- Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. If the theory is, indeed significant as well as notable (and I'd argue that it isn't), this is still an example of when the basic notability of the subject supersedes any additional criteria he might meet. tl;dr: He has not received enough significant coverage outside of the theory to merit a separate article from the theory. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect  ; this article is too spammy and over-person in its emphasis of hobbys and families to keep in the history. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 3 April 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. – bradv🍁 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ScoutMyTrip[edit]

ScoutMyTrip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and has been written as WP:PROMO. The content has been written by not complying with the WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICBT Campus[edit]

ICBT Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The content has been written as WP:PROMO and couldn't obtain much reliable information from Google search index. The content here has been written as an advertisement with the intention of promoting this institute. The article has to be rewritten. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 22 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. The Delete arguments cite BLP1E along with the possibility of COI. The Keep arguments cite rather weak general notability claims, along with concern that deleting the article might be criticized by some outsiders. The Delete arguments are clearly stronger. MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ginn[edit]

Aaron Ginn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I struggle to see how this individual may be notable. He has a fairly routine career, but there’s really nothing that sets him apart. - Biruitorul Talk 07:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense – the article contains a clear claim of notability – appearance in a Forbes 30 Under 30 list. Another source has the subject appearing in "The Wired Political Power List – Silicon Valley’s 20 most influential insiders." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is in the news because they wrote an analysis of the coronavirus situation which was posted on Medium but which has been taken down. This takedown has been making waves – for example, see the Wall Street Journal, which is calling for transparency. As this is an ongoing situation, we shouldn't rush to delete this article too as this will feed the feeling that some sort of cover-up is underway. Better to keep everything out in the open and just restructure the topic if we feel that the CV aspect is the main topic rather than the person. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That post is not exactly J'Accuse…! (and Ginn is no Zola). As noted below, writing one controversial blog post does not quite confer encyclopedic notability. As for the “feed the feeling” argument: I can’t find it in WP:BIO. - Biruitorul Talk 06:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no difficulty finding earlier coverage of the subject in a book published by the Oxford University Press. The more you tell me there's nothing to see here, the less convincing it seems. See Streisand effect. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please review WP:BASIC: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”
        • Our subject has not met that lofty standard; on the contrary, all we have are trivial mentions and various unusable bits of chaff. - Biruitorul Talk 12:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "coverage of the subject" in that OUP book is at the "trivial mention" level. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The OUP source passes WP:SIGCOV. Now that we have more sources and development of the topic, I'm updating my !vote to a straight Keep. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost certainly an undisclosed COI, which we should not reward. People can cry "conspiracy" and "cover-up" all they like — and nowadays, anyone who doesn't like what we do will go ahead and do that, no matter how careful we are. We should follow our own policies and guidelines and live with integrity, rather than starting at shadows and trying to second-guess our way out of potential arguments that wouldn't even be made in good faith anyway. Even if there is a critique of his (incredibly ill-informed) take in a more convenient and stable publishing venue than Twitter, he's really only known for the one thing. We could potentially commemorate him in Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, but there is no need to have an article about him, or to preserve the history of this one. XOR'easter (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable person in political science.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in Philanthropy_(magazine) at [7]. He also gets coverage in places [8] [9] for his political organization. Articles about growth hacking always mention him, he cited as an expert in the field by his peers [10] [11] I agree that him being in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list and the Wired magazine's "Political Power List" adds to the case of his notability. Dream Focus 16:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Forbes names 930 people to its 30/30 lists every year, I'm pretty sure we've well established this does not count for notability. Still none of these links are significant coverage about Ginn; a WP:FORBES Contributor essay sharing a quote of his is not sufficient. Reywas92Talk 19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, just one publication names 930 people to a list of people under 30 each year. This is clearly not even remotely close to showi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Seconded suspicions of COI. I don't think he even warrants a mention on Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. cave (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added enough context around the COVID-19 controversy across three publications — Wall Street Journal, Slate and The Guardian — about coverage of the essay removal to give context. Significance is less about Ginn and his career, and more about the removal of the essay. This removal by Medium is a notable step by Silicon Valley companies taking editorial responsibility for the content on their platforms, and it will be referenced in historical/academic analysis in the future. — jenny8lee(talk) 15:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep media coverage over the years passes WP:GNG including the 2013 profile of their project, 2017 recognition in Forbes, and 2020 coverage of COVID-19 activism. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - arguably a case of WP:BLP1E, a news article masquerading as a biography. I've reviewed the other sources that don't relate to the recent story, and none of them amounts to 'significant coverage' of him in my view. The coverage in the recent stories isn't enough; as a rule, we shouldn't have biographies on people known only for one event. The content about his controversial article could be merged somewhere, but it doesn't justify a Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 17:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Survivors Center[edit]

Pacific Survivors Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Mentioned a tiny amount on local radio and newspaper. Most links took me back to this article. Very worthy, so I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:09, 22 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) buidhe 14:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Breeze[edit]

Jared Breeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not sufficiently notable child actor, it also had a fewer roles, per WP:BIO. SwissArmyGuy (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwissArmyGuy (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject has had several roles, including a 33-episode stint on The Young and the Restless and the lead role in The Boy (2015 film). There is also quite a bit of coverage about him in respect of his acting career—more than just passing mentions. Therefore, I believe the notability standards are met. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:09, 22 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) buidhe 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of electric cars currently available[edit]

List of electric cars currently available (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is very out of date and seems to duplicate a lot of content on other lists. I can’t see a reason for this separate list to exist. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, delete List of production battery electric vehicles (table) instead. List of production battery electric vehicles is more comprehensive but having details in a table is nice. Restructuring the page by status like List of modern production plug-in electric vehicles is preferable. However with the explosion of models in the next few years, particularly with wide variation in availability and stats from country to country, this can certainly be too unwieldy to be worth keeping in one page. Or are there other pages this duplicates that restructuring into would be better? Reywas92Talk 19:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete because Wikipedia is not freaking Consumer Reports. Or Road and Track or Motor Trend or anyone else that does car reviews. I'm against "current" articles anyway since they have to be babysat to keep them up-to-date, but the level of detail here is inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:LISTN. However, we may wish to consider a name change, because the name implies that the list needs to be constantly checked and updated. I support Reywas92's alternative suggestions. Behindthekeys (talk) 04:24, 14 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) 03:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current article, but support split and rename per Reywas. Nightfury 11:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essential content can be retrieved through wiki mirror sites or WP:REFUND, but I don't see any reason for this article. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that it should be revised to drop "currently available" from its name and self-description, but obviously a list of electric cars is a notable topic. And it can link to any current Consumer Reports-type round-ups/reviews about the currently current ones. In general for Wikipedia it makes sense for list-articles to include current and former examples of a notable kind of thing, and it is aggravating when anyone tries to enforce a "current-only" type rule, which also makes the topic less encyclopedic. Fix by editing, not a matter for AFD. Also the other tabulations/lists can be merged, probably, but that is also for editors' discussion and/or bold editing elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is, there are already lists of electric cars such as List of modern production plug-in electric vehicles and List of production battery electric vehicles, both of which duplicate this content. I can’t see how this list could be expanded and remain beneficial. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno, possibly AFD would be valid to address a new duplicative article (although I would still think that deletion would not be appropriate, rather a merger would). But this is not a new article, it was created in 2009 in this version. Editors willing to actually look at the purportedly duplicative articles should do so, and seriously try to figure out what their differnces are, and make merger proposal(s). This is not appropriate for AFD. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, including that it is not for serious editing discussion. AFD is just the wrong forum, sorry, and this AFD seems really non-productive to me, just a fishing expedition or question-raising exercise with no prospect of actually accomplishing anything. "I can’t see a reason for this separate list to exist" indeed, well, that is too bad, it would take some effort to sort it out better. "I can’t see how this list could be expanded and remain beneficial", well then you are not the one to do the editing or participate in Talk page discussion about what merging or other editing is appropriate. I suppose AFD is mainly for simple decisions where actually deleting something is a plausible outcome, not present here. There is no valid justification stated anywhere here for outright deletion, at all. It is completely 100% obvious that the topic is fine/good/appropriate for wikipedia, of course Wikipedia can have a list of electric car models, there is no question whether sources exist. --Doncram (talk) 11:19, 28 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J-EyE[edit]

J-EyE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has an impressive number of "references", but most of them are just links to his tracks. No critical reception or any indication that his work received any reknown. There's a lot of name dropping in this bio, but I can't find any evidence to verify his work with them. Disclosure: Yes, I did just gut the ELs, but none of them including his own social handles worked anyway. StarM 03:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:49, 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) 03:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources cited in the article are promotional links to the subject's music. A Google search of the subject does not show him or his music being discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable person in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 27 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. – bradv🍁 16:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Rostami[edit]

Amir Hossein Rostami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy either general notability or acting notability. Google search shows that the actor exists, and that there are other people, including an astronomer, with the same name. The article does not list any in-depth coverage, probably because there is no in-depth coverage. Article is categorized as a stub, although it is Start-Class length, and the categorization is reasonable. Although the article has a lengthy filmography, only one of the entries is blue-linked, because only one of the entries, Shahrzad (TV series), has an article. Acting notability depends on multiple roles, not one role.

This article was draftified twice as undersourced as an alternative to deletion. It was then created in article space, resulting in the fait accompli that it could not be draftified a third time. The draft and the article were then history-merged. But it was draftified because it doesn't satisfy biographical notability, and it still doesn't satisfy notability.

The actor may be up-and-coming, but does not currently pass notability, so that this may be too soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The subject seems to have not appeared in major lead roles in films and television series. Abishe (talk) 07:20, 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 speedy keep. Nomination has been withdrawn, clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Eddie891 Talk Work 17:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Richards (announcer)[edit]

Stan Richards (announcer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, but very aware this is pre-Internet times. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Boleyn, I think you're right that this is an internet-times issue. These in-depth newspapers.com articles, the latest of which is his 1990 obituary, are the tip of the iceberg for him: 1, 2, 3. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:02, 22 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. However, consensus is clear that this article needs to be re-written from a neutral standpoint. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cunninghams[edit]

The Cunninghams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability - no reliable sources in the article and I couldn’t find anything to add. Previous tag indicating evidence of COI issues. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete COI indeed, entirely written by band member User:Ericcraigis, which explains all the OR in it... Reywas92Talk 19:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft as they do have a resonably detailed AllMusic bio here which often indicates there is more rs coverage but with the coi, original research and peacock language it more or less needs a total rewrite, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources here Tulsa World, Deseret News, Billboard, TrouserPress, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 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 14:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search them do not show them being discussed in reliable sources. The AllMusic source isn't enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMusic plus another four reliable sources coverage identifed above, thats enough for moving to draftspace at least, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Atlantic306's identification of sources and establishment that it is fundamentally notable. Sure, tag for improvement, and provide link to this AFD with its links to sources, or, simply develop it. This is a matter for editing, not AFD, and there is no purpose IMHO to draftifying where it would risk getting deleted or ignored, just keep and encourage expansion. We have considered enough: it is a valid topic. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 27 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal Flexible Architecture[edit]

Optimal Flexible Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what is not notable about it? Thomas d stewart (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas d stewart, there is nothing I can find that shows it meets notability standards. Which part of WP:NOTABILITY do you think it meets? Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, I don't think OFA is notable in general, nor is it notable in the computing field. However in the context of Oracle database products it does have significant coverage. Perhaps it would be better as a section in Oracle Database?
Kudpung, why would sourcing effect anything I thought GNG covered subject and not content. Thomas d stewart (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 06:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software standard article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Oracle refs are not independent and do not contribute to establishing notability. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this standard.Dialectric (talk) 02:01, 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. Merge and spilt can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) buidhe 04:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luca and Loraine Baricchi[edit]

Luca and Loraine Baricchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Loraine Barry is already an article. They are not notable for being a couple. All refs are primary sources. ツStacey (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ツStacey (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Loraine is independently notable, and has her own article accordingly. Luca could arguably be said to be independently notable as well, though there are far less sources regarding him than his former partner. However, this double-biography article does not seem appropriate as they are not really notable for being a couple, specifically. I was initially going to propose that this could be renamed and repurposed to be about Luca alone, as he does not currently have an independent article. However, as none of the sources currently included in the article are valid, doing so would really be no different that starting over from scratch to begin with. Rorshacma (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not notable while being twice world champions? What a ridiculous judgement.- Altenmann >talk 02:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not that they aren't notable, its that they, Loraine in particular, are more notable as individuals than as part of the duo, and it does not make a whole lot of sense to have double biographical articles. And, between having individual articles or a combined article, the former makes more sense. Particularly as they have not been partners since 2010, and have both continued their individual careers separately since then. Rorshacma (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh sheesh, loraine more notable than the duo? Which highrr accolades did she won outside the duo? Besides, wikipedia not paper can have individusl bios as well as couple. - Altenmann >talk 02:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 05:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ballroom dance is a legitimate competition, actually considered by the Olympics for inclusion (unsuccessfully, but with a level of seriousness. A championship "team" certainly can be expected to meet notability standards. The nom does not argue that the subject is not notable, only that the article is lousy. Wikipedia is infested with articles about professional wrestling "tag teams", which compete for fake championships staged by their employers with no actual competitive elements. Until we're ready to apply the same standards to real competitions and made-up ones, we should at the very least keep our coverage of the real ones. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:47, 22 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. – bradv🍁 16:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Hubert (industrial designer)[edit]

Benjamin Hubert (industrial designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there's a lot of trivial passing mentions of Hubert out there, significant coverage of him seems absent. The sources currently cited are either among the trivial passing mentions that don't say much beyond his name, are not reliable independent coverage, or rely very heavily on what Hubert says about himself or other topics. I couldn't find better ones, and apparently doubts about the notability and the sources were already raised in 2017. Huon (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 05:59, 22 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Plague[edit]

Forgotten Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is poorly / unreferenced. Some of the refs present do not support the content in question for example "Co-director Ryan Prior, as a journalist, sets out to investigate the reality of patients struggling with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) which has become to be known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) after enduring a journey of his own with the disease."What is ME/CFS? | Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) | CDC". www.cdc.gov. 2019-05-15. Retrieved 2020-03-05."

The CDC does not mention this film or individual. This site ProHealth is not reliable for anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This https://www.meaction.net/about/ ref does not even mention the film.
Basically we have one blog post https://www.huffpost.com/entry/forgotten-plague-a-must-s_b_8230262
Looking here https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Forgotten+Plague%22+-wikipedia and not seeing good refs for this videoDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doc James The reference of https://www.meaction.net/about/ was used to reference what the Organization’s goal was, as it tied to the topic of the film since one of the directors of the film is on the board of directors of it and has stated its promotion in press kits. However, since the article is not about the Organization, I decided to remove it. Additionally, the Huffington post is considered to be a review on plenty of other sources mentioning the film. Lastly, the film is relatively targeted to a certain population, so finding more references is rather scarce. I will continue the search though. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Asanc445 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Asanc445 No worries. I will leave it to experts of writing film articles on Wikipedia to decide if one review is sufficient for an article. Apologies for coming down hard on you like this... Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doc James It’s completely fine! I appreciate all the input you have given lately. I really want to make a develop a well-written article; so thank you. While reading the ProHealth article by Erica Verillo, I interpreted it as a review, since she does her own analyses in some points; however, the experts will know best. Additionally, I found several other possible sources for reviews such as This Telegraph article and This other article from a small production studio. however, I am unsure if they would be considered sufficient. Thanks again for your help.--Asanc445 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An article that uses unrelated references that have nothing to do with the article, and primary sources. Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 05:57, 22 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) buidhe 04:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MooTools[edit]

MooTools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly just WP:GNG and maybe WP:PROD AtlasDuane (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AtlasDuane (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Below are a couple of sources found on Google Scholar:
– North America1000 15:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain additional views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 05:57, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midrash Yeshaya[edit]

Midrash Yeshaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a midrash that is completely unsourced. The two sentence text of the article is copied verbatim from the public domain source indicated in the article, and that seems to be the extent of coverage on the topic. Every other source I was able to find was simply just the same two sentences, word for word. I am certainly no expert on the topic, though, so I am bringing it to AFD in case others may know more about the subject, and thus know where further sources can be found. If further sources are not presented, however, this should not be retained, as the single, brief reference to the text is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From what I can see here, this appears to be a brief list of works which make reference to a lost work, with no indication as to what the lost work's subject was, who wrote it, or when or where it was written. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article says this midrash was mentioned but the text was lost. Unless a source can be found to show that this vanished midrash played an important role in something significant (in which case, why doesn't the encyclopedia mention it?), it is far below the notability threshold. Zerotalk 23:25, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasnath alahi chowdhury[edit]

Hasnath alahi chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHESS. i tried with bengali name but didn't found any significant coverage. Anyway, there is a ref from sylhettoday24.news (i have doubt about this site), it says "there was a seminar, 17 players have been nominated for various World Chess Instructor titles based on the number received." but articles claims he won National Instructor title?? Looks like it was created for promotional purpose. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:43, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMFPJ20[edit]

SMFPJ20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD and CSD. There is no evidence that this passes our notability guidelines. All 4 results of typing this into Google lead to some rather sketchy websites. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 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. Obvious pass of WP:NPOL so this has no chance of closing as delete. (non-admin closure) buidhe 18:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sujeet Kumar (Odisha)[edit]

Sujeet Kumar (Odisha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear claim to notability. Promotional article. While there are lots of low-quality sources around, there's nothing particularly reliable. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. SD0001 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Elected member of the Rajya Sabha.[1][2][3] Meets GNG/BASIC/POLITICIAN.

References

  1. ^ Suffian, Mohammad (18 March 2020). "Odisha: All 4 BJD nominees to Rajya Sabha sail through unopposed". India Today. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
  2. ^ "Rajya Sabha: 18 candidates from five states elected unopposed". in.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
  3. ^ "4 BJD candidates elected unopposed to Rajya Sabha from Odisha". KalingaTV. 18 March 2020. Retrieved 22 March 2020.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and update. The references provided by Goldsztajn prove notability per WP:POLITICIAN. The subject is member-elect of the upper house of a national parliament. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I just did a quick clean up of the page, applying one of the references named above. It needs more work, but remaining problems appear to be surmountable. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Bin-Di[edit]

Liu Bin-Di (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An old article but this seems dubious. The article implies that the person's death sparked a rebellion, but the sentence cites no source. The only citation is an inaccessible journal article (so possibly failing WP:Notability (people)). However, I cannot find any mention of this figure in Chinese-language sources related to the event. I searched Google Books and the only result is a novel. The sources are too lacking compared to the claimed importance of the subject. Esiymbro (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Esiymbro (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although Liu Bin-di's supposed Chinese name is not included, Chinese Wikipedia's article on the Ili Rebellion includes an inter-wiki link to the English article with his name listed as 刘斌迪. Even with his supposed Chinese name however, I couldn't find anything on either Baidu or Google (aside from Chinese Wikipedia's entry on the Ili Rebellion, of course). If Liu existed at all, he was probably not the cause of the rebellion. Khu'hamgaba Kitap talk 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched on Google and baidu, same result with Khu'hamgaba Kitap, unfortunately. Lacking WP:RS to demonstrate WP:N. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:54, 22 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. czar 03:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Women Strong[edit]

Thirteen Women Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book per WP:NBOOK. Article reads like a poor review/book report. KidAd (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did a quick google search but found zero coverage regarding the book and it does not appear to have won any major awards. Additionally it is written very poorly almost like a book report as KidAd stated and would most definitely require a major rewrite if it is kept. Edi7* (Message Me! • 📜) 09:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search on newpapers.com for the book title turned up 4 passing mentions, including one article about its author, who does appear to be notable. But nothing in Publishers Weekly, nothing in NYT, only this press release from the publisher, which is not an independent source. I'm amazed this article has lasted for more than a decade. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why is this listed as a school related subject? It's about the author's experience in college, not high school. Even if it was, it would still be out of scope. John from Idegon (talk) 18:11, 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 keep. czar 03:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TrueTube[edit]

TrueTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to comply with WP:NPOV and seems to be WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but the article needs to be rewritten. I believe this article meets the notability criteria, but needs to rewritten to comply with the neutral point of view. Interstellarity (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the British Academy Children's Awards wins. The article should be improved, not deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the articles notable and passes WP:GNG. However, it needs to be corrected to comply with WP:NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It just needs to let go of some of the sources. Some of them are from IMDB and TrueTube. But other than that, it should be kept. Analog Horror, (Speak) 23:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 18:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. K. Wren[edit]

M. K. Wren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no coverage of writer in secondary sources, or unverifiable social media posts and info on book discovery sites.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zentulku, are you suggesting that Wren's works are notable, but that Wren is not? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NAUTHOR #3 states notability of an author exists when there are "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" of their books. -- GreenC 02:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 22 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 APRA Awards (Australia)#Screen Music Awards (with AGSC). (non-admin closure) buidhe 18:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noir Drive[edit]

Noir Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 22 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. You are in a twisty maze of D&D AfDs, all alike. Merge, maybe? But for now, makes its saving throw against deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally non-notable article that fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Sourced almost entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources. Vampires in the context of a single game are not encyclopedic enough for a standalone article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, or, barring that, move merge to Vampires in games and refactor to parallel Vampire films and Vampire literature. There is substantial coverage, at least, in the independent source, Keith Ammann, The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters (Simon & Schuster, 2019), p. 294–303. There is an entire CBR article on one specific D&D vampire, with a meta-commentary on D&D vampires generally ("It didn't make sense to him why a creature like a vampire was just sitting around in a random dungeon with oozes, goblins, and zombies. So he and his wife set out to create a vampire villain with fleshed-out motivations and history"), and mentions in other pieces too numerous to list. BD2412 T 01:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light Merge and Redirect to Vampire#Games Vampires in games- The current article is comprised entirely of in-universe game information, with nearly all citations being game books. The few non-game books being used are extremely trivial mentions. As far as the two sources mentioned by BD2412 above, The Monsters Know What They're Doing is simply a game guide, and the coverage of vampires within is just an explanation of the rules involving them. There is no actual coverage of the creature outside of pure in-game terms that would establish notability. As for the lengthy article on the one, specific D&D vampire, he actually already has an independent article that would be far more appropriate to cover the information from that article. There are plenty of trivial mentions of the D&D versions of vampires in various sources, but nothing that actually establishes any kind of real-world notability. There is enough that a brief discussion in the appropriate section of the main article on Vampires in games would probably be warranted, however. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please direct me to the section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources that distinguishes third party publications for being "simply a game guide". Otherwise, the source is as satisfactory for the WP:GNG as any other book in print. I should also add, I disagree with the assessment of this source as merely explaining the rules involved. The entire premise of this book is that the rules provided by the game do not provide sufficient guidance for the psychology of how the identified creatures should behave from a tactical standpoint. BD2412 T 03:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Vampire per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Vampire#Games.This is game guide information only. There is no notability for this subject outside of the game. Fails WP:GNG. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vampires in games, the secondary sources provided either contribute notability onto a specific character instead of D&D vampires in general, or merely provide rules and tactical information that fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. A mention of the fact that Vampires exist in Dungeons and Dragons has been added to the main Vampire article, and this article can provide nothing else that should be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - I'm unconvinced anything really needs to be retained. For items not unique to D&D, they do not need that much weight, certainly not the whole article just restructured into something else. If anything at all, one or two sentences is sufficient for items that do not have major cultural impact. TTN (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: There is treatment in several secondary sources as already discussed. For all disagreement about the weight of certain sources, all criticism saying there is not even anything to merge has ignored the creative origin presented in the solid secondary sources The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. Daranios (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: since we seem to have a complete failure of imagination with respect to the topic of vampires in games generally, I have gone ahead and created Vampires in games, which is instantly a much better merge topic than the main Vampire article. You're welcome. BD2412 T 22:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now to Vampires in games. That is way better than creating articles on individual game manifestation. Whether it is worth having as a seperate article can be discussed in other contexts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extensive discussion in Vampires: The Myths, Legends, and Lore. This reveals that they are a small part of the wider topic of vampires in fiction and in roleplaying games (there's lots of scholarly and popular literature on vampires, so that's not surprising). They're also an important part of the Ravenloft campaign setting, so no doubt people with access to the various magazines that will have talked about Ravenloft will be able to find more sources. Lots of modules focus on vampires (e.g., Palace of the Vampire Queen, Curse of Strahd, Ravenloft) and there are D&D novels focusing on Vampires, so reviews of these works will no doubt be valuable sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--it seems possible and perhaps even probable that this topic could be an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. However, such an article would not resemble this article in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.88 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD is not cleanup. If you think the article can be improved, please do. BD2412 T 04:49, 30 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge21[edit]

Bridge21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG quite clearly. A lot of poor quality coverage includes passing mentions or what looks like paid features of no real substance. PK650 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Maa Punjab Dee[edit]

Main Maa Punjab Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not in tune with Wikipedia standards Rickyurs (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely a keep for me. The film has received a major award and passes WP:NFOE.Vk38584 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep national film award makes it notable.Jai49 (talk) 11:14, 27 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AbdulJabbar Surajo Guga[edit]

AbdulJabbar Surajo Guga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He is the CEO of a non-notable company. None of the info in the article establishes him as a notable figure. The sources cited in the article do not discuss the subject. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. The article is pretty much a promotional piece.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:03, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_March_22&oldid=948986604"