Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 March	4 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisian-Sicilian War[edit]

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

I’m not sure whether this article is a hoax or just a total garbling of sources. The creator authored several rather odd articles, some unsourced, others of questionable reliability. This article takes a number of reliable sources and weaves them together to invent a war that essentially didn’t exist. The term ‘Tunisian-Sicilian War’ is used only in copies of this article on Wikipedia mirrors. Also many of the specific events set out in the article are not supported by the sources cited. For example I can’t find a single source saying that Ariana and La Goulette were occupied until 1808 or indeed, at all) while plenty of sources show that La Goulette was uninterruptedly under Tunisian control throughout this period. There was no war in which Norway, Spain and the USA fought Morocco, Egypt and Tunis. It’s total fantasy. This isn’t a matter of a few things to correct - the whole thing needs scrapping per WP:TNT. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:V. Even wars from 1806 should be verifiable. I want point out what appears to be fairly clear original research by the same editor, LionofGod12 at Battle of Vinland (1010) and Battle of Stamford (918), and two prodded articles noted on their talk page. We just do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, the war does not seem existed, WP:SYNTH. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible WP:HOAX DocumentError (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Bösch[edit]

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

No independent sources. See the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anouk Claes (2nd nomination). BD2412 T 22:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources fail to establish notability DocumentError (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Reksulak[edit]

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

Does not realistically meet any of the seven WP:ACADEMIC criteria. Is a minor academic and isn't near meeting any of the criteria at present. White Whirlwind 咨 22:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation counts on Google Scholar [1] are not strong enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 and the article does not present any other case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:PEOPLE. I have to point out that he is not even listed as law school faculty and he is two steps below the center's dean, who in turn reports to the dean of the law school, who in turn .... Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable economics academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Rensin[edit]

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

After nearly four years as a stub, including only one minor newsworthy citation from 2016, this article does not appear to meet the notability criteria for an article on a living person. Cmholm (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject meets WP:BIO, which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", by virtue of the three articles about his 2016 Twitter controversy cited in the article. A better argument for deletion would rest on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, but in this case neither applies since—as I've now edited the article to make clear—Rensin was the author of a 2009 book that itself received significant coverage in reliable sources, and so meets not only WP:GNG but also WP:AUTHOR. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit _(blether) 22:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per A&H rationale. I think the current coverage just scrapes by my own standards for GNG. The article could also be moved to Twitterature: The World's Greatest Books Retold Through Twitter and refocused to concentrate on the book. b uidhe 19:35, 10 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew James Hartsfield[edit]

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

I triggered this AFD through new page reviewer tools and am not sure if the bot will place the given reasoning here so I'm recapping it. The main reason for nomination is for failing notability. None of the references cover him, they are just places that mention him or have a sentence on him. The content of the article is just resume type material. Two other editors have tagged this as suspected undisclosed paid editing. Obviously written by an experienced editor, but this user name has only edited this article, and the user name appears to have been generated from the subject/title of the article. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Glorified CV. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major achievements or significant coverage to establish WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. - The9Man | (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator, for reasons given there North8000 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. He seems to be just an ordinary fund manager and small business owner. Several of the sources cited are mere listings, or are tangentially about him but really about the company he works for. I've found nothing online that shows much of coverage' and zero news articles about him. In 2006, posting a resume with a host of bare URLs or brief listings was excusable. Everybody in 2020 knows we're a charity, not a resume service. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly a vanity page and fairly certain to have been paid for. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another article on a non-notable businessman created for clout. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Winston & Strawn. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breed, Abbott & Morgan[edit]

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

It appears that this law firm does not meet the requirements for significant and independent coverage at WP:NCOMPANY. They do have some media coverage (including a New York Times article) for a lawsuit directed against themselves, but I propose that this is too fleeting to be considered significant, and it also runs afoul of WP:1E and possibly WP:EXIST. Otherwise this firm has no significant coverage of its operations, and can only be found in typical industry directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Winston & Strawn, the clearly notable firm into which this firm merged. Whether Breed, Abbott & Morgan is notable on its own is questionable, but as an acquisition they are noteworthy for mention in another article. BD2412 T 23:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I find this merge suggestion to be a good one. If that is the ultimate decision for this AfD, I will complete the merge myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. According to past outcomes and my own standards, law firms older than 100 years tend to be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hollow Knight. Userfy done on request, however the article should not be moved back to mainspace unless notability increases. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team Cherry (developer)[edit]

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

Business does not yet meet WP:GNG for an article. A Google search returns only primary sources, or passing mentions in articles about the video games developed. While the games themselves are notable, the developer does not have any reliable secondary sources to substantiate having a Wikipedia article at this time.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The developer is notable mainly in relation to their game Hollow Knight. There is probably not enough coverage to warrant a separate article aside from the game's article. — bieχχ (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response while I agree that baseline notability is in alignment with the game Hollow Knight, team cherry has a unique art style and game development processes. There are countless videos and tutorials on how to make art similar to the works of team cherry, as well as coverage on there style of game dev. this could be viewed as material for Hollow Knight, however they embody this in all of there games, namely silksong, and will continue to in the foreseeable future. they also have a few awards related to the studio, witch I will update in the wiki page. I do hope my response is considered, and that I have not been too much trouble. if it comes to deletion, i would prefer to have it moved to userspace, so that it is ready should they achieve notability, however of course, I wish it to remain on wikipedia for the public eye.
Redirect to Hollow Knight. As stated by the nom, there really is not much out there in reliable sources that talk about the team, making this a case of being a bit WP:TOOSOON. I think a redirect to Hollow Knight, their only released game at the moment, would be useful, though. And when/if they start garnering more coverage that could support an article, it can be spun back out then. Rorshacma (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable except in relation to Hollow Knight. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but either way this should not be an article yet per WP:NCORP._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollow Knight. A likely search term but there is very very little to be found about the subject other than in direct relation to Hollow Knight. Most of the current article is already covered in Hollow Knight. Perhaps merge up the employees responsible and any other missing bits into #Development, and that will then include everything? Aoziwe (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Request" If this is chosen to be deleted... witch I hope it wont, could you move it to userspace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaledish (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audley, Arizona[edit]

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

Yet another rail siding/station, now (according to one not-officially-reliable source) reduced to crossovers. Until fairly recently there was nothing much around it except section roads, but recently some houses have been built a bit to the west, and the location of the name on the map has wandered around between the two spots Will Croft Barnes claims it was originally called "Aubrey" and was changed to "Audrey" to eliminate duplication of another place name, but he admits that it's "spelled Audley" and that's what everyhting I've found has called it. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whenever something is said to be a populated place but there is no estimation of what the population is things look suspicious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of a notable populated place here. Recent nearby development is unrelated to whatever may have been here in the past. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several references to it as a rail siding but no indication that it was ever populated. Found one reference that said it was meant to be named Aubrey, in reference to Aubrey Valley which lies just to the east. Glendoremus (talk) 20:13, 9 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 Merged into village article. Nomination withdrawn. Renata (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lokės pėda[edit]

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

Not notable amusement park. All but one of the references are to travel guides; the only more substantial reference is a promotional piece published in a newspaper. Renata (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has rs newspaper coverage and tourist guides are not unreliable per se, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlantic306: the issue is not whether tourist guides are RS, but whether they establish notability. Tourist guides are effectively directories. If we said that tourist guides are sufficient to establish notability, then every restaurant and shop will have articles on Wikipedia. And one 100% promotional newspaper article in 15 years is hardly enough for "significant" coverage required by WP:NCORP. Renata (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you please give a link to the newspaper article as the reference seems to go to the site of the amusement park. If there was an article on the village where it is located (which should be created) I'd say merge into that, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Atlantic306: a copy is here https://www.meniu.lt/naujiena/lokes-peda-siulo-ilsetis-karstantis-medziais-jonavos-raj Renata (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, it is a bit promotional although Google translate mangled it somewhat. Do you speak Lithuanian? because if you do perhaps you would be interested in writing an article about the village and this park could be included there with this article becoming a redirect. I could have a go but its a bit difficult with google translate, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Created article on the village and merged a blurb into it. Renata (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus outbreak in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

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

As the article states, there has been no outbreak in Bosnia and Herzegovina. WP:CRYSTAL would say to delete this, as the event hasn't happened yet. Hog Farm (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. The article's title, 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is acceptable. It may not indicate that there has been an outbreak in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It can be understood as Bosnia and Herzegovina's reaction to the 2020 global coronavirus outbreak. Article 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Poland was created on 29 February 2020‎, but the first COVID-19 case in Poland was just confirmed today. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have more important things to do than delete and recreate valid articles based on the factually random number of confirmed cases. Agathoclea (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above editor(s)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 03:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Bean[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. Google reveals many "location opening soon" announcements and coverage of local charity activity, but nothing that covers the organization with much depth. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ORGCRIT. There exist multiple, independent and significant reliable sources that this is an establishment. No business is inherently notable, but the fact that there are already 99 locations in 11 states, signals for me that we can rule out any problems of WP:PROMO, since this is already a thing. I would add that the possibility of WP:BIAS exists against inclusion of this chain because it is not useful for the average Wikipedian, since it mostly does not feature sit-down locations. StonyBrook (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @StonyBrook: It seems that your argument for keeping hinges on the chain being inherently notable based on the number of locations it has. I was unable to find sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Many routine announcements about locations opening or local fundraising activities are out there, but the definition of significant coverage applied per WP:ORGCRIT specifically excludes routine announcements. Though the article has a history of arguments regarding WP:PROMO, my nomination here isn't making any assumptions about that. I'm still not seeing anything that meets notability guidelines, in spite of the chain having a visible presence across the Western US. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are based on a policy that essentially seeks to excise blatant advertising from WP. While the original draft was spammy, I don't think that the present neutrally-worded article (which has been around for over 10 years) should suddenly get the boot while the business has meanwhile doubled in size. The article might technically pass WP:AUD, as I have just added a national source. I think deletion would defeat the WP:PURPOSE, as there will surely be readers seeking information on this chain and will now come up empty-handed. StonyBrook (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy are you referring to? I'm honestly lost regarding that statement, as I feel I explained my stance that there is no significant coverage on the franchise that allows it to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The additional source you added is another routine announcement. Personnel announcements are specifically listed in WP:ORG as trivial coverage, meaning they do not contribute to notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A careful reading of WP:ORG demonstrates that it was implemented as an additional requirement, over and above that of WP:GNG, in order to rebuff attempts of corporations and other organizations to game the system and use WP as a promotional tool. But if that guideline gets in the way of building a complete encyclopedia, then it should be ignored. That is why WP:ORG has a subsection with alternative criteria for inclusion, which I believe we can and should use here. StonyBrook (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one purpose of WP:ORG is to prevent promotion does not mean that's its sole purpose. It is not a guideline that is only applied when WP:PROMO is suspected. That said, the validity of those guidelines is a moot point here since there's still no sources that meet WP:GNG, in my opinion. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, coverages are WP:ROUTINE. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The9Man | (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. I found these newspaper articles about the chain:
- "The Human Bean to compete for Valley's coffee drinkers" by Erica Sagon, The Arizona Republic (Feb 22, 2007)
- "Recession doesn't slow coffee companies' growth" by Greg Stiles, The Statesman Journal (Feb 8, 2009)
- "Tax issues cause closure of Human Bean shops" by Pat Ferrier, Fort Collins Coloradoan (Dec 31, 2009)
- "Human Bean revival plans remain alive" by Pat Ferrier, Fort Collins Coloradoan (Jan 1, 2010)
- "The Human Bean working on 9th location" by Pat Ferrier, Fort Collins Coloradoan (March 31, 2018)
- "Coffee Your Way at the Human Bean: Bandon store named Best Coffee" by Amy Moss Strong, The World (Coos Bay, Oregon) (Sept 28, 2019)

I think that the first two are especially strong. The Arizona Republic article is a 20-paragraph article specifically about the chain's expansion plans. The Statesman Journal article has seven paragraphs about the chain. I think that this is enough to demonstrate notability. I added these sources to the article page under a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the page can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to read the articles, but your description makes them sound like they've got enough depth for the article to meet WP:GNG. If we can get another opinion from someone with access I'll withdraw the nomination. Otherwise I'll wait for an admin to close and suggest removing the notability template in the talk page. Thanks! Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You can actually apply for free access to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library Card platform; you should check it out. :) -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG per the multiple published sources of presumed reliability linked above by Toughpigs. Carrite (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abra, Arizona[edit]

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

Kept once before because a lot of people didn't grasp how bad GNIS is, and because the full state of the thing hadn't been spelled out. This is actually another railroad passing siding, or more specifically, it is two different sidings at two different times. What happened was that the SF rerouted the line through/by Paulden, apparently a bit before 1980. The siding by Paulden was called Abra, and when they laid in the new line, they put in a new passing siding, and called it Abra instead; the old route was abandoned, and this is shown on one topo map and is plainly visible in the aerials. Older maps and aerials show nothing in particular around the siding; more recently, a subdivision was laid in a bit north of the track in the early 2000s, but nothing indicates it was named after the siding, and subdivisions aren't as a rule notable anyway. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God those keep votes in the first afd are an embarrassment. This and this from 1893 mentions an Abra ranch, This even gives the name origin. The NRHP nom suggests a different etymology, being another name for the Valle, Arizona station. But nothing indicates it was its own town or populated place, much less with notability. A redirect to Paulden, Arizona works too. Reywas92^Talk 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Abra is a long ways from Valle, so I think they are unrelated. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not a populated place and no other indication of notability.Glendoremus (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Back to my views about overcoverage in the US and undercoverage in Akwa Ibom State. Eket is the main city in the second largest urban conglomeration in Akwa Ibom. Idua and [[Afaha Eket and two other places that make up the urban area, Eket has 200,000 people and the overall area has over 350,000. Although these are 15 year old figures, so it may be many more today. Other places we lack an article on include Ikot Akpaden, which is the location of the main campus of Akwa Ibom State Univeristy. To be fair I only found it because it is the headquarters location of a stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Due to the factors in choosing stake headquarters, I am pretty sure any place designated as the city of record for such a stake should fall under our gazeteer goal level of inclusion. We also lack an article on Ikot Akpatek. Also the location of a stake headquarters, it is a proposed location for the creation of a Panamax port, and my guess is has a long history of trade. I just created an article on that place, but my point on uneven coverage still stands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you advocating deleting articles to improve our coverage? Because if not, it's not really clear how your argument relates to the notability of Abra.----Pontificalibus 17:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a populated place. "Abra" is Spanish for ravine and is used in realtion to multiple locations in Arizona, so a redirect isn't appropriate.----Pontificalibus 17:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is nothing more than a railroad landmark, not a notable or populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect finding WP:ATD redirect to Paulden, Arizona. Lightburst (talk) 19:35, 9 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besim Tafilaj[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability. Appears to have played a very small number of professional games and this has generated zero news coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to have spent almost his entire career in Kosovo where he won multiple championships and cup titles. If there are sources about him they will most likely be in the Kosovo national media which is probably in Albanian, rather than in the english speaking media. To prevent WP:BIAS, I'd recommend a search in Kosovan sources as a part of WP:Before. - Alvaldi (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a simple Google search[2] in the Albanian edition is returning more results about another individual businessman with the same name. Any editor with the knowledge of Albanian language can help in this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:39, 2 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)} 16:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability. Short of a Hey, with three editors unable to find reliable sources according to policies and guidelines, and a BLP tag since 2009, this would be the defining of WP:NOTSTATS. Otr500 (talk)
Additional comments: Some things just don't make sense. The article has had 129 page views in the last 30 days with 43 revisions and 33 editors since 2008. "Maybe there was hopes the subject would be more notable in time". For the record, keeping an article around, lacking appropriate sourcing, in such hopes is against more than one policy and guideline. While it would be nice to also hope someone with knowledge of "Kosovan sources" (and language) happens along we are not required to search out every nook and cranny looking for needles in a haystack. A minimum search (D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability) is all that is "required". Of course, we could also wait 5 or 6 more years in hopes a future editor was born and will "find the sources" (part of policy on verification and "Responsibility for providing citations") one day. If at that time it became evident there was only mundane sports reporting we could come back to AFD, but that may still not guarantee inclusion. Sourcing (or lack thereof) on an article for content or notability become more crucial when challenged. To stem systemic bias we could learn the language first. A better "suggestion" would be to source a BLP related article from the point of creation. If the person dies after creation it is still a better sourced article. If that is not done and a review (many years later even if at AFD) shows zero sourcing improvements, the subject likely was not notable at the time of such creation and more than likely does not deserve a stand alone article. Of course, if Simple English Wikipedia (listed as "detracting from the raw information standpoint") is going to replace Wikipedia in search results we could throw all sourcing requirements out and "just include everything" to show Wikipedia is still growing and worthy of searching --- We could keep our "higher standards" (sourcing defines notability) or be just like everyone else. Otr500 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no improvements since my last comment on this Afd plus I agree with Otr500 on this. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:07, 12 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Covensky[edit]

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

The article makes a lot of notability assertions. She's a senior lecturer at Wayne State, which is not enough for WP:ACADEMIC, not by itself. She's written many books of poetry, which works for WP:AUTHOR if the books meet the guidelines - and it's not at all clear that they do. Gbooks turns up very little - a mention in the Remington Registry which Google results indicate is a Who's Who scam; the entire entry is full of flowery prose. There's not much to support WP:AUTHOR; being published in a "distinguished literary journal" is not sufficient since WP:NOTINHERITED, there's a book about her poetry with zero reviews on Amazon. I don't see much discussion of her work in Gbooks, something I'd expect from a poet that meets authoring notability guidelines. I can find nothing to support WP:GNG. Please note that an editor with the name of the author has heavily edited the article so take all notability claims with grains of salt. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. I couldn't even find anywhere that had excerpts of her poetry. Not that it would matter for notability, but as supposedly one of the most prolific modern Hebrew poets you'd think there would be something out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, as pointed out below, "Under a Silky Sky: The Symbolist Poetry of Edith Covensky" is available at Amazon.com. Not only did she write poems, but others are writing about her poems. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph:, I saw "Under a Silky Sky" on Amazon. It's not clear how much of a unique work it is, or if it's just an anthology of her poems with an introduction and minor commentary by the editor/translator of it. Going by the preview it only has like a half a page at the beginning of commentary and then it's just translations into English of her poems. I wouldn't say her work being translated into English makes her notable on it's own. I can't speak for the other sources mentioned though, but if it just comes down to like 3 sources, one or two of which are just English translations of her work with minor commentary, that's still questionably notable IMO. Especially for someone that's supposedly so prolific as she is. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further searching purposes: Her name seems to be אדית קובנסקי in Hebrew and ‎Idit Ḳovensḳi (in Romanian?). There might be some Hebrew or Romanian sources out there, but I'm just not sure to what extent. But I don't think English searches are going to shed a ton of light on a Hebrew poet.

There is one book about her work from a Jewish Studies professor (Under a Silky Sky: The Symbolist Poetry of Edith Covensky) and a collection of her poetry (The Poetry of Edith Covensky by Edouard Codish), but I can't find much else other than these 2 Hebrew mentions I can't read: Some sort of magazine/journal and maybe an Israel Literature periodical, and a piece included in the Journal of the Israel Association of Writers in English. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book -- and articles -- about her work is sufficient for notability. Additionally, there are multiple books of her's listed on Worldcat [3]. but I cannot judge the importance of their publishers, and the holdingsin American libraries of Hebrew-language poets is not a good indication of anything. search for reviews would need to be made in periodicals in languages that I do not read. Does the nominator? DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 2 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)} 16:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've done some cleanup work on this, and want to thank @Whisperjanes: for pointing out the variants on her name, which are used by authorities/libraries. For a really representative discussion of her work, we'd need someone to go after Hebrew sources, but there is enough there to keep. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has had a lengthy literary career with enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. She also passes WP:AUTHOR and meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm looking at the new references - one didn't mention her at all, one had a trivial mention, one is listing her as a future book club reading. I'm not sure how any of that meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Writing several books of poetry does not confer inherent notability. I will clean up the references. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10TAVY[edit]

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

Non-notable musical artist. Only references are his Spotify bio. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON with just three singles and no albums, also a lack of coverage such as no AllMusic entry at all and going by the username it looks like an autobiography, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above points. --MarioGom (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uswa College Islamabad[edit]

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

Previously deleted, self promotional (one of the "notables") is the author), poor English, no sources, repeatedly rejected in AfC and previously moved to an existing draft Draft:Uswa College Islamabad that has never been edited. May be a real/notable place but nothing establishes that. Originally PRODed this but creator removed PROD without addressing issues. JamesG5 (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is real College you people can ask me for further details like for website, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumail1293 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unsourced and not ready for mainspace. Creator should continue to work on the draft Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Tanzania, New Delhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party sources. Embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vadakkan Pattukal. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thacholi Ambadi[edit]

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

While adding some refs to Thacholi Othenan, I tried to add some here, and I couldn't find a single reliable work mentioning him (so, likely fails WP:GNG). I also tried a book search for "തച്ചോളി അമ്പാടി" and came with nothing. The linked single ref is difficult to confirm (Google Books suggests there may be a low tier academic journal of sorts? [4]) but neither the search inside this book on GBooks nor a general one on GScholar does not produce any hits for this subject's name (a bit more digging confirmed there is/was a journal like this: [5] but I couldn't find any digitized archive to access). Particularly the part 'Ambadi' produces 0 hits, as the search for 'Thacholi' (family/clan/tribe name?) does produce some. Likewise, search for 'Meppayil' yelds no hits in that book. If it is not a WP:HOAX, it needs better references that would at least confirm such a figure exists in real folklore and is discussed somewhere. And right now I am failing at confirming this is not a hoax, or at least a fatally mispelled topic. PS. Search for Kadathanadan Ambadi just produces info about the flm where he is a fictional character, with no indication that he is a real folklore character. So right now my conclusion is that this is a half-hoax - a non-notable fictional character portrayed here as a real folklore figure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge or redirect to Vadakkan Pattukal, along with Aromal Chekavar. Per the interwiki links, this doesn't appear to be a hoax, but at the same time there doesn't appear to be enough material to justify a spinout article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, quite certain it is not a WP:HOAX but rather a popular folklore. There's a film based on it, Kadathanadan Ambadi as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a WP:HOAX but a popular folklore in Kerala, whom I heard a lot about from my grandfather. However, I don't think it will stand the Wikipedia's requirements of notability as nothing much available about him on the internet. The9Man | (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Offline sources (books etc.) would be acceptable too, if anyone could find some. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A simple reading already provide a suitable merge-candidate: Vadakkan Pattukal. The Banner talk 10:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vadakkan Pattukal. The father should also be merged. I started the correct procedure. gidonb (talk) 23:03, 10 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. But there seems to be consensus that cleanup is needed if this is to stick around for much longer. Sandstein 20:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Identity tourism[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY, the article talks at length about other peoples work, but doesn't seem to describe the concept at all, other than some vague waffle about "intersection". AtlasDuane (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTN: I agree that the writing style is confusing (although "vague waffle" is unfortunately common in social science topics, even in published academic work). But there are a lot of published sources used in the article, and "talking about other people's work" is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. (See WP:OR.) ARTN says that writing style doesn't impact notability -- if this is a notable subject, then it should be kept and improved. I think that the sources given in the article demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: WP:ARTN only applies if you supply sources that confirm notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the term "identity tourism" is not widely used. Not notable subject. Seems like an advertisement for this coined term. It's full of coatrack and irrelevant subjects.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs a rewrite to sound less like a collage of sociology department websites, but there's a topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. Currently the article is talking about at least two totally separate topics and should be split, even if it is kept. I'm not convinced that the sources on the former justify an article as opposed to discussion in a broader article on tourism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO Seems to be an academic theory at this point by sociology majors who want to write about gaming for class. In this NPR article on avatars, it's referenced once: "Namakura says that choosing a character outside of your own identity can risk turning into what she calls 'identity tourism.'" There is a big difference between "known as" and "what he/she calls." To be notable, something has to be written about repeatedly over time in RS and this has not. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "known as" and "what he/she calls." True, but it can be both. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not look like a topic that warrants a full article. Dorama285 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. AFD is not cleanup. A cursory WP:BEFORE search in my university's online catalogue shows a plethora of peer reviewed academic journal articles and books on this topic. There's clearly not a lack of sourcing or notability issue here. If a content fork needs to happen that is an editorial issue that should be solved outside of the AFD process. Likewise any issues in the writing style or content organization should be solved through tags and discussion on the article's talk page and not here at AFD. WP:NEO doesn't apply here because at this point the amount of academic published content on this topic is extensive. My university library contains 460 peer reviewed journal articles on this topic. 4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is a small sampling of peer reviewed sources where identity tourism is the main subject:

Howe, Alyssa Cymene (February 2001). Queer Pilgrimage: The San Francisco Homeland and Identity Tourism. Vol. 16(1). p. 35-61. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Monson, Melissa J (January 2012). Race-Based Fantasy Realm: Essentialism in the World of Warcraft. Vol. 7(1). p. 48-71. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Schnell, Steven (January 2003). CREATING NARRATIVES OF PLACE AND IDENTITY IN "LITTLE SWEDEN, U.S.A.". Vol. 93(1). p. 1-29. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
King, Victor T (2008). Tourism in Asia: A Review of the Achievements and Challenges. Vol. 23(1). p. 104-136. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Martinez, Katynka Z. (Fall 2011). Pac-Man meets the minutemen: video games by Los Angeles Latino Youth. Vol. 100(3). p. 50(8). {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Srauy, Sam (29 April 2015). The Limits of Social Media: What Social Media Can Be, and What We Should Hope They Never Become. Vol. 1(1). {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

This is just the tip of the iceberg.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:4meter4's sources clearly document that there is a notable subject buried in the article, but it is still unclear to me after reading all the above comments that Identity tourism is the best term for the first part of the article, a point that is not just as matter of 'cleanup'. I share User:Roscolese's concern that the second part of the article is not clearly about the same subject as the first; the sentence that introduces the second part, 'The emergence of the internet as a venue of identity expression is also relevant to the theme of tourism and identity', sounds like original research to me in the absence of a source. The article has been relisted twice now: we are only going to be able to solve the issue of the final home of this content with more than the work that 4m4 has carried out, which is not something we should assume will be carried out at AfD. I think the best course of action is to close as no consensus and flag the unsatisfactory state of the article with appropriate quality warnings, including {{Neologism}}. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG pass based on the source by Pitchford cited in the footnotes plus one cited above: Howe, Alyssa Cymene (February 2001). Queer Pilgrimage: The San Francisco Homeland and Identity Tourism. Cultural Anthropology. 16(1). p. 35-61. We're there, GNG pass. Deficiencies of the article are deficiencies of the article. SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 11:21, 11 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berta Pereira[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No coverage found. Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In an attempt to provide better coverage of musicians from the South American countries, I based this article on Wikipedia's Spanish version which provides quite a full account of her successes, albeit from just one source. I now see she has been covered in more secondary sources and have added pertinent references.--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources added by Ipigott I find additional materials such as [6], [7], riz. Clearly meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See also books : Beyond the Page: Poetry and Performance in Spanish America By Jill S. Kuhnheim ; Intermittences: Memory, Justice, and the Poetics of the Visible in Uruguay By Ana Forcinito, as well as Spanish sources Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the additional sources provided here by other editors, the article meets WP:GNG.IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable books coverage as identified above to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more documentation has been found relating Pereira's work to documentation of memory for political prisoners under the Uruguayan dictatorship. Additional sources have been added. Dorevabelfiore (talk) 01:07, 9 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bugbear (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Non-notable monster that fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, all sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. No notability outside of the game system. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There is no content worth merging at this time. TTN (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The available sources are the usual array of game books, game guides, and trivial mentions that do not pass the WP:GNG. As the D&D creature bears pretty much no resemblance to the actual Bugbear outside of having lifted its name, this would not be a useful article to redirect or merge there. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bugbear, where a sentence or so can be added, even if based on PRIMARY or such, given that it is very underdeveloped and could use an 'in-popular culture'. Something that might plausibly be saved, even if a little bit, through merge. Ping User:Toughpigs. I started a popculture section there, I just don't know if there is anything we can salvage from this PRIMARY article, even to mention bb's appear in D&D... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naghma Sahar[edit]

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

A news anchor with no other notable work or significant coverage. Out of the four references provided, two of them from her employer, two others are primary sources. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. - The9Man | (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable journo.-- Brihaspati (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST . Now there are thousands of journalists not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:20, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pro360 Nutrition Partner[edit]

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

May not meet WP:GNG Shanze1 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shanze1 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shanze1 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shanze1 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shanze1 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Sources look like press releases. Nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article making promotional claims of medical benefit ("the company’s products are designed for Kids, Women, Mom, and specifically made to treat for Respiration, Cancer, Dialysis, Liver Disease, Diabetics, Hair Grow, Weight Gain, Weight Loss, and Ortho"), sourced only to a press release. There was also a similarly sourced item in the Hindustan Times, but I am not seeing the WP:RS coverage needed to demonstrate notability here. Redirecting to the article on the GMN Healthcare company (contributed by the same editor) might be an option, as it shares reliance on the same Emerging Company award, though I think that article is itself questionable on WP:NCORP grounds. AllyD (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious spam. Highly likely undisclosed paid editing related to GMN Healthcare. --MarioGom (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO and nothing but. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giftano[edit]

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

Rather promotional article, sourced to press releases and listicles - can't find any sourcing that would satisfy CORPDEPTH, so fails NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty obvious promotional article for a start up failing WP:NCORP. Created by WP:SPA, pretty WP:DUCK obvious case of WP:PAID WP:COI as usual, in other words, WP:SPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP founded in 2014 it is upcoming at best not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of prolific poets[edit]

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

Interesting, but in the end no real definition of "prolific" exists, and the term is used liberally by sources, making this an ill-defined or even undefined list. Wikipedia alone has 177 "prolific poets"[8], and many more who we don't list as such are given this description in reliable sources (e.g. C. S. Lewis [9] or Jorge Luis Borges [10] or Langston Hughes [11]. Fram (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title of article to List of most prolific poets and added a few names. Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the line of "prolific" is not a standard defition, so there is no clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Most prolific" is too ill-defined and vague for this ever have clear enough inclusion criteria to make a useful list. Rorshacma (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. If we have reliably sourced numbers for people, and if most prolific poets is treated as a group, we could have something more objective like a list of poets by number of published poems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KESC Society[edit]

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

Private housing society, fails WP:NGEO. Störm (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the neighbourhood article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirawooth Sruanson[edit]

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

The footballer never played in a fully professional league and was never called to the international team, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lots of passing mention in news sources, especially in the context of his appearances for the U19 national team, but I'm not seeing in-depth third-party coverage. (The first TrueID citation in the article is reproduced from the national team's Facebook page.) --Paul_012 (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFootball, the article also has it completely wrong about the Leicester City bit, he wasn't at the club for two and a half years, he simply took part in a training programme sponsored by the club to try and get a placement in England, which he didn't get. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan-ti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks notability in reliable sources. Entirely sourced to primary sources. Not any kind of WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. No notability outside of the game system. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plenty of google hits, but very little in the way of sources outside of game books and game guides. The closest thing I came to actual coverage was this rather funny incident, but it is not really coverage of the creature itself and does nothing to indicate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't establish notability. There is nothing in the article that makes it worth retaining. TTN (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing much to salvage here, pure PLOT and such. Fails NFICTION. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Minotaur#Board & Video games. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no independent notability in reliable sources. The reference to the Ashgate Encyclopedia more involves the typical minotaur. The D&D version is sourced entirely to primary sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. No notability outside of the game system. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minotaur, which covers depictions of the mythical creature in popular culture. BD2412 T 19:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The opening statement of this AfD is incorrect insofar as all three secondary sources present in the article do refer directly with the minotaur in D&D, not the minotaur in general (maybe there is a confusion with other entries of the minotaur in The Ashgate Encyclopedia aside from page 192?). However, all these secondary sources deal only with the aspect of creative origin of the minotaur in D&D, so I guess that's too little to support an article on its own, and ther merge target suggest by BD2412 seems reasonable to me. Daranios (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minotaur#Board & Video games, I added a sentence about this version to there, and there is no longer a reason to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is substantially more worth merging than the mere mention that the creature exists in the game. From the existing article, it should be noted that the creature appears in every edition of the game, including as a playable character in some, and that they are a significant race in the Dragonlance series of novels. BD2412 T 23:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Secunded. What Devonian Wombat already did is a great start, but there is more to merge as described by BD2412, including adding the primary and other secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Nothing to merge from the current version of the article, it's mostly unrefeenced or PRIMARY PLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Minotaur per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the grounds for keeping though? You can’t just say “there’s sources” and nothing else. How is it independently notable? Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Currently fails WP:GNG. There seems to be little present to establish why this version of the creature is particularly special, so I don't see much of anything to retain. TTN (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively to Minotaur. Creation info is worth mentioning, but most of this is crufty fictional content, and once you trim it away, there’s not enough to pass the or warrant a spinout. Also support just redirecting if it helps us get a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 10 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) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Oliver[edit]

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

This was a redirect but it was recently changed to a disambiguation page. Neither target has an article of his own and likely never will. Very light readership - a few "hits" a week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a valid disambiguation page that lists 2 entries that both have a mention in the article. I think it would be better to choose a primary topic and redirect it there with a hatnote to the other use, but keep for now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't matter if it has a light readership. Anyone looking for 'Roy Oliver' can very quickly reach this index of where Roy Oliver is mentioned on Wikipedia, click on the info we have on the right one or realise we have nothing on the Roy Oliver they may be looking for. This is what disambiguation pages are for. Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:D criteria: It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spring, Texas. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Spring[edit]

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

Article on an "old town" in Texas. My WP:BEFORE reveals nothing but seemingly not independent articles which are really just event listings for this very old business development. Therefore it fails WP:NBUILD Bait30 ^Talk? 05:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 05:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 05:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Spring, Texas, leaving a redirect. @Bait30: if you and all other participants of this discussion agree, withdraw this AFD as "speedy procedural keep" then do a WP:BOLD redirect and invite people on Talk:Spring, Texas to incorporate the old content to effect a merge. If anyone reverts the redirect, open a merge discussion on the talk page or open a fresh AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, c'mon! its got a cook book! actually that may not be enough, here are a couple more books that cover this town; Haunted Old Town Spring, and Just A Whistle Stop Away: The History Of Old Town Spring published by the East Texas Historical Association. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oops, so it meets WP:NGEO, hence a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is simply the historic downtown area of Spring, Texas, not a distinct place. Redundant to Spring,_Texas#History and no reason it cannot be covered there. Similar to Old Town, San Diego, it obviously wasn't called that originally, but retroactively named as the community grew around it. Except here the place is still quite small and we absolutely don't need a separate article just to say this is the commercial area with older buildings that needed an advertising moniker. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burro John, Arizona[edit]

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

"Burro John" Revello was a fellow who was a minor figure in a few stories about the area. He had a ranch on Humbug Creek. This is where the ranch was. The End. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The place is not notable. Weather "Burro John" Revello was notable is an indepdent discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A ranch does not meet GEOLAND; there would have to be significant coverage of the ranch separate from Mr. Revello. –dlthewave ☎ 00:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listed here as a locale, not a populated place. Either way, nothing notable. Glendoremus (talk) 22:32, 9 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallups, Arizona[edit]

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

Another "no there there" mystery, the name just appears on a 1970s topo map, sticks around to the next edition, and then disappears again, to reappear when it is copied in from GNIS. And there is just nothing there: it's just a random junction of two intermittent streams without the slightest indication that a human being ever set foot in the place, much less built anything. Searching is a bit of a problem but after accounting for the city of Gallup and a birther-pushing preacher, I get no meaningful hits. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't get the multitude of AFDs about places in Arizona going on and on. Here the AFD implication/claim is this has never been a populated place. But it is identified as having been a populated place in GNIS, do you think that is just made up? And, it is a place with water. Current Google satellite view shows two "tanks" (open water holes/ponds/tanks) full of water, and named springs also in the immediate area. It seems to me that "Gallups" name applies to the area between and around two or more road ends, as highlighted in this Google map view linking two places "named" Gallups. Does anyone seriously think a place with water in generally arid area is not going to have been populated?

Frankly I don't like the quest to delete all these places, including this one, just because non-locals can't find on-internet sources giving elaborate stories about them and appearing to be highly reliable. I am rather sure, instead, that local history sources do indeed cover these places. And Wikipedia is an almanac or whatever-is-the-term-describing-fact-we-do-cover-all-of-these for covering populated places. Sure, tag for expansion (but doesn't a "stub" tag already call for that?), but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were unaware, it was non-locals who put all these spots on in the first place! When the locals write these things up, they show up in searching: that for instance is how I found out what "Burro John" was all about. The accumulation of names in the GNIS gazetteer was conspicuously uncritical, and their choice of "populated place" to cover a huge variety of rather disparate sites was unfortunate, because everyone's first impulse is to put it on a continuum with actual settlements like towns and villages. And sometimes they are, and oftentimes they are not: a lot of times they are self-evident mistakes, such as Headquarters, Arizona. Because of this we have long taken the position that GNIS and Geonames do not confer notability and are largely useful for the coordinates they record, and in the US at least we have taken the position that named spots on the railroads aren't notable just because they have names. As far as the claim that these can be expanded: some of them can. I discovered that Chrysotile, Arizona, was actually the site of a major asbestos mining operation. But saying they can be expanded doesn't create sources, and I frankly do not believe that meaningful sources exist for all of them. Frankly, I would be inclined to prohibit this sort of mass dump of geo-stubs from gazetteers because of the great deal of work it takes to clean them up, and the inevitable resistance encountered by people who more or less object to verification on principle and who aren't doing any of the work. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram: "But it is identified as having been a populated place in GNIS, do you think that is just made up?" ABSOLUTELY! We've documented countless errors in the GNIS: check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington where they had 15 industrial railroad spurs mistakenly classified as "populated places" (and they still appear on current topos!). Sure, something existed at these places for it to have appeared on a map at some point, but even those that are correctly classified as somewhere a person lived at some point in time are not necessarily notable, this including neighborhoods, subdivisions, mobile home parks, ranger stations, and temporary work camps. It's disturbing how many people have mass-created articles solely from the GNIS without bothering to find corroborating sources to establish notability or the need for an article when information can be covered elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 21:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is or was a populated place. The existence of water on arid land is not evidence of a human settlement.----Pontificalibus 13:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bare dabases are not reliable sources to show a place is notable. For the record GNIS seems to have been so determined to place names everywhere that they did in fact just make some up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this is or was a populated place. fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNIS is simply not sufficient or reliable evidence that a place is populated. No other indication that this location is populated or notable in any way. Glendoremus (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like most GNIS entries it looks like there was something here that someone named "gallups" and used as a landmark, but there's not evidence that it was something that was a populated place or meets our notability guidelines in any way.

@Doncram: your Google Maps example seems to be an artifact of their pathfinding algorithm. The map shows two places named "Gallups" less than 50 feet apart (likely an erroneous duplicate); in areas without roads, the algorithm automatically takes you to the nearest road (which in this case is about 2 miles away) before proceeding even if it would be much faster to simply walk the few steps between the two points. There's no sign of a large roadless area called Gallups. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another failure of lazy mass-production. Reywas92^Talk 21:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elwyn Tinklenberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as a non-notable candidate. The individual is not inherently notable because he served as the mayor of Blaine, Minnesota, a city of 50,000-some-odd people. Additionally, most of the article is sourced to local Minnesota sources and the former candidate's website. KidAd (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability derives not from his candidacy for office, but as member of the governor's cabinet as the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, one of the chief administrative officers of the state. "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable . . .". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Political_figures_not_elected_to_public_office. Kablammo (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on US state cabinet-level transportation commissioners include:

Roger Millar (engineer), and
The 13 members of our category for New Jersey Commissioners of Transportation;

as well as one city-level commissioner:

Polly Trottenberg

I agree with the nominator that candidacy for public office does not automatically confer notability, but that is not the basis for a finding of notability here. Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created Roger Millar, which survived an AfD as no consensus. I argued that Millar had recieved coverage from multiple RS, particularly in connection with the 2017 Washington train derailment. I have not been able to find similar coverage of Tinklenberg from his time as Director/Commissioner of the Minnesota DOT. KidAd (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to MnDOT's website and search for his name by checking "All State of Minnesota Web Sites" you will see 70 entries, some of which relate to his service. Google books also has some listings. He was also quoted after the I-35W bridge collapse, and was active both in light rail in Minnesota. But the basic principle still is that, as a member of the governor's cabinet, he is notable. The campaign sites and references should be eliminated from the article or at least reduced, and reliance should instead be placed on independent books, media, and state documents. I will add some links on the talk page, for possible use. Kablammo (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State documents aren't bolsterers of notability — a source only assists in establishing his notability if it's independent of him, and not if it comes from his own employer. And neither are sources in which he is quoted in coverage of events — he has to be the subject of a source, not just a giver of soundbite in a source whose primary subject is something else, before that source assists in building his notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem. It is clear that online newspaper archives do not go back as far as we need-- this is made clear by the fact that the StarTribune's glowing editorial on Tinklenberg's retirement is not available on the paper's website, but is excerpted on the state's media resources. The problem is not the absence of sources, but the dearth of online resources due to age. I well remember Ventura's administration and the attention his transportation policy (and transportation commissioner) received then, which resulted in the Hiawatha light rail line and some years later in the commuter rail line to Big Lake, which was pushed by the governor and Tinklenberg. (And I'd be hard-pressed to name any other members of Ventura's cabinet.) But online newspaper archives do not really cover the era. We should follow the policy that cabinet members in state government are presumed to be notable, and not assume that because if it ain't online, it ain't reliable-- or ain't there. Kablammo (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about the onlineness or non-onlineness of any potential sources. The newspaper's own archives aren't the only possible place to look, because things like ProQuest, Questia, EBSCO and microfilms still exist too — and we don't have any requirement that our sources have to be online at all, either, but are allowed to cite print-only content like books and pre-Googleable newspaper articles. Accordingly, we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because you presume that non-Googlable sources probably exist, we keep poorly sourced articles only if better sources are explicitly shown to exist. And we also don't have any policy that cabinet members in state government are automatically presumed notable even if no valid sources are shown, either: they keep articles if good sources are shown, and not if they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue that his most notable role was as Mayor. Mayors are quite often notable. However, the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Political_figures_not_elected_to_public_office exception is probably meant for national cabinets rather than state, regional or municipal cabinets. Nonetheless, the extensive political account does not get us to notability. We need sources that document his biography. If we had cited content regarding his ancestry (at least his parents), where he went to high school and such, I would support this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: But you missed the part where "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state [...]". ミラ P 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally" does not mean "always": it means "if they clear GNG on the sources". Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It's vague. And I was talking to TonyTheTiger, not Bearcat the Bearcat. ミラ P 22:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does — no notability claim that anybody can make is ever so "inherently" notable that it exempts them from having to have any reliable sources at all. And absolutely anybody in this discussion is allowed to reply to absolutely anything said in this discussion regardless of who you were originally "addressing", so it doesn't matter who you were or weren't talking to either. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Oh, so you ignored WP:NPROF which is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline? 🤦 ミラ P 22:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs aren't "alternatives" to GNG; they serve to list the types of statements that count as notability claims if GNG-supporting coverage supports the truth of the statement, not as things that people get exempted from having to have sources just because the article says them. People can and do try to sneak pet topics or total hoaxes into Wikipedia by lying about notability claims they don't really have in reality — we literally just within the last four days had to delete an article about a politician who couldn't even be verified as having ever existed at all, let alone as having held a notable political role — so simply stating that somebody passes a notability criterion is never an exemption from having to have the correct kind of sources to properly verify that the notability claim is true. And even if SNGs did exempt people from having to have any sources, PROF wouldn't apply to Tinklenberg anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While being commissioner of the department of transportation can get him an article if he can be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, it is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts him from having to clear GNG just because he exists. But the sources present in the article aren't what he needs to show to get over the GNG bar — and primary source content from his own employer, directory listings and short soundbites in coverage about other things, the only other potential new sources that have been alluded to in this discussion, still aren't what he needs to show either. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasons in my reply to TonyTheTiger. ミラ P 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine The section you cite says subcabinet officials are usually notable (implying cabinet officials are notable), but this is understood to mean national level. Later in that section it demonstrates this distinction between national and sub-national for party leaders, which is a different thing from cabinet officials. However, it notes that subnational party leaders "are usually deleted". I assume the same is true for subnational cabinet officials. They have to rely on WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment considering we keep every article on a state legislator, I find it hard to justify deleting articles on members of state cabinets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State legislators are kept because they pass GNG on the sourcing, not because they're somehow exempted from having to have any non-primary sources just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mortensen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scott Mortensen

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as a non-notable candidate. KidAd (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources found are all about his running for DFL candidates for the Minnesota Sixth District 6 seat where he dropped out of the race. Fails WP:NPOL for he is not an elected politician in state level and fails WP:GNG for not having WP:SIGCOV of independent, reliable sources outside his political campaign as a candidate. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a failed primary candidate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even making it to the general election would not have made him notable. Wikipedia is not meant to be an archive of campaign bios, but this is all we have here. The fact that this page has somehow survived 14 years shows how much we have not overcome the problems of our non-existent notability policies before 2006. I hadn't realized we still had only primary sourced articles that were that old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries, but this neither makes nor reliably sources any claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of running in a primary. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Fails WP:NPOL as Mortensen is an unsuccessful primary candidate. He has no WP:SIGCOV. The article reads like a campaign brochure. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:17, 9 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Trap, Arizona[edit]

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

This is another spot copied into GNIS from a forest service map. GMaps shows the unmistakable fencing of a livestock loading chute, and if you go back far enough in the topos, you see a single building at that point, so the safe bet is that it used to be a ranch. What I also found is that there is a "Wood Trap Trail", which is likely how the name got on the Forest Service map. In any case all legitimate references in searching beside the trail itself relate to it being used to refer to a "Wood Trap area" in reporting on wildfires and their control. This seems to be a vague locale, as no map I've seen delineates such a area. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidently not a populated place or otherwise notable.----Pontificalibus 10:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a populated legally recognized place. Does not pass GEOLAND or GNG Lightburst (talk) 19:36, 9 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steam, Arizona[edit]

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

This one is a puzzle. The name came to GNIS from another federal gazetteer, but up until recently, there was nothing here at all but fields, a rail line, and some canals. There's no sign that this was a railroad-named point; the name doesn't appear on topo quads until it got copied into GNIS. Of late a desalination plant was built here (the geolocation is right at the entrance to the facility) but there's no indication that "Steam" has anything to do with it, either in name or function. Across the tracks and canals there is a small neighborhood but again I can find no indication that it even has a name; in any case it would appear to be a non-notable spot on the northwest edge of Yuma. Searching is a bear because of the huge array of false hits, but I found nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That neighbourhood to the north is an exclave of Cocopah Indian Reservation and searches based on that didn't reveal anything. No evidence this is or was a populated place.----Pontificalibus 10:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our SNG or GNG. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a cogeneration plant a few miles away that provides steam to local industries, which could have something to do with the name, but there's no sign of anything notable here. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)c[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Upchurch[edit]

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

The content in this article is duplicated by the better-formatted and cited discography at Upchurch (musician) and at the various album pages. A track listing sourced to a lyrics website, YouTube, and SoundCloud is less valuable than the presentation of the content at the discography section and the actual album pages. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These song list articles are generally only deemed appropriate when an artist has a large number of song article to navigate. This artist appears to have zero song articles currently, so it’s hard to rationalize this being necessary within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In agreement with the arguments made above. A list article is supposed to help with navigation to other articles, and that is not necessary for this musician, while his own article already has the necessary information on his releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mayhem[edit]

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

Though this publication appears to have had its ardent champions, going by the expressions of praise and bereavement to be found in the sources that the creator of the article supplied, I can find no sources other than, perhaps, this, with significant coverage of it that would support a finding of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. There are several independent sources currently in the article, including Dragon Magazine and Space Gamer. I've also found some coverage here:

"Beyond the worlds of the Monopoly players" by Frank Green, Hazleton Standard-Speaker (Feb 1, 1988)
Suspense & Decision #1
Suspense & Decision #5
"Extinction of the Species", No Fear of the Future (May 2007)
There are also examples of the magazine in a University of California archive of play-by-mail game material.

Given that Paper Mayhem existed long before the internet age, and that pretty much every source we can currently find says that Paper Mayhem was one of the driving forces of the Play-by-Mail community, I think that it's likely that there are other sources that haven't been digitized and archived yet. WP:NEXIST says: "Before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I think that there is enough evidence to support the claim that Paper Mayhem was very important in its specific subject area, and that more sources are likely to exist. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that for this publication, I should have checked an archive of print publications as you've done. On the other hand, the four that you lists are thoroughly consistent with my summation of the situation: they have no more than bare mentions of the subject and don't, on their own, contribute to notability. Look, the coverage in one of them consists entirely of "I even had a subscription to the PBM industry magazine "Paper Mayhem" for a year."

On the "other other" hand, I won't dismiss your point that the nature of these expressions implies a greater regard among members of the PBM community. Normally, when sources supporting notability fail to be presented, I see that as the end of the matter, but I'm more on the fence in this situation. I see below that others are agreeing "per available sources", but without bringing any such sources to our attention. That amounts to "it's notable because I bet it's notable". Largoplazo (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available sources and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This publication seems to have been greatly influential in its subject area. Its certainly better sourced that Play-by-mail game, and I agree with the WP:NEXIST arguments presented. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the editor in chiefs of two gaming magazines have stated this magazine's importance. Largoplazo noted this from Suspense and Decision's editor in chief, while Dragon Magazine's editor in chief Roger E. Moore said in 1988 that Paper Mayhem was the "best established and ... most informative" of the various play-by-mail magazines available at the time (as stated in the article). [NOTE: I created and am the major contributor to the article. Also, I continue to find sources, but it's slow going—mostly acquiring out of print, hard to find, magazines from the period. I.e., Paper Mayhem, existed, it was hugely important, the sources we have tell us that, and it will be a while before it's a Featured Article. :)]
Keep per above comments. Also the exact kind of unique "ancient" history that Wikipedia should cover. Caro7200 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Borderline. Both sides make good points. In the end, through recently I lean deletionist, I kind of agree with Caro00 and the commenter above. It's not a spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Choirs in Colorado. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Martin's Chamber Choir[edit]

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

Seems to not meet WP:GNG. Has had minimal coverage, namely reviews in the Denver Post, and passing mentions in Colorado Public Radio and The Guardian. Could be redirected to an entry in Choirs in Colorado Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Choirs in Colorado, as they are WP:CHEAP and a good WP:ATD. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Elwell[edit]

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

Non-notable academic: article fails WP:NACADEMIC BonkHindrance (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 17 publications with over 100 citations each (one single-authored) and an h-index of 40 (on Google Scholar) should be enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Presidency of the International Society on Oxygen Transport to Tissue (ISOTT) and the Society for Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (SFNIRS) is sufficient to establish notability (president of international organization in her field). Also several awards. I have noted these in the lead (they were already mentioned in the body). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Passes WP:PROF#C1. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foloosi[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The sources appear to be largely PR/churnalism, the rest are routine coverage. I also strongly suspect that this was paid content. creffett (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant advertising + possible UPE = WP:TNT. Chock full of buzzwords, almost would qualify for G11. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone,

Today morning I created a page Foloosi which has been marked for deletion by User:creffett. I would like to inform you that I'm not associated with the company in any way nor I've been paid by the company to do it. Being a startup enthusiast, my purpose of creating the page is to acknowledge the companies working in the fintech sector of the UAE and MENA regions. The company for which I've created the page has been listed under top 20 fintech list of Forbes in the UAE.^[1]

Without knowing much about the company or doing prior research, User:creffett made an attempt to get the page deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foloosi. It is clearly an attempt of Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion.

Everybody's opinion matter, but saying that it is not a notable company isn't valid, because the company is listed under Forbes' list of 20 Fintechs in the Middle East, makes it notable as well as a valuable company for the MENA startup ecosystem. On top of that, imagine creating a page for PayPal or Stripe, and somebody comes imposing his/her opinion and mark it for deletion, it is not ethical at all.

Afterall, it is my 4-hour hard work. After this, I'll be stepping forward to create a page on Careem Pay, the fintech arm of MENA's unicorn Careem, now owned by Uber.

I hereby request you to remove the deletion request and let others contribute to it.

Thanks!

Delete Does look as an advertisement of a not notable company. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Referencing is just a collection of PR churnalism. Article was clearly written for advertorial/web presence-boosting purposes. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khulna Titans in 2019[edit]

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

Non notable team-season. It fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Article does not contain anything substantial content, just some stats. Apart from Points table & Squad which already covered by 2018–19_Bangladesh_Premier_League#Draft_and_squads & 2018–19_Bangladesh_Premier_League#Points_table, all of articles contain just a brief introduction. Articles does not demonstrate notability. I'm proposing this and following article for deletion:

Sylhet Sixers in 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rajshahi Kings in 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chittagong Vikings in 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Rangpur Riders season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there may be systemic bias due to lack of coverages in English language sources. Any native Bengali editor can help in this. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm native Bengali. i didn’t nominated just because sources aren’t there, all of those pages have duplicated info that already covered by other pages (i already mentioned above). Also all of teams articles already have their seasons summary. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I am be honest here, there is a lack of references for this article which hasn't already being covered with the main seasonal article. HawkAussie (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. I am convinced that আফতাবুজ্জামান, being a native Bengali editor have checked WP:BEFORE nominating it for Afd. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delelte all per nom. Just a copy of the points table and a squad list, without any further content or explination as to why these stand-alone teams by year articles are notable in their own right. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Useless to have separate list of articles. Abishe (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preparatory School Islamabad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable school with no sources failing WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG BonkHindrance (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with BonkHindrance. Dorama285 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ East, Forbes Middle. "FINTECH 20". Forbes ME. Retrieved 2020-03-03.

[1] East, Forbes Middle. "FINTECH 20". Forbes ME. Retrieved 2020-03-03.

[1]