Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 March	1 April >

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Switzerland[edit]

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

A too small community, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete As for Finland. This is a minor "X in Y" intersection based on it existing, rather than having had the attention paid to it which we require for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep considering the total population of Pakistan, the data from 2016 is significant. Gritmem (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No policy-based statement. Your own methodology? Störm (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed, simply no significant coverage. PJvanMill (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per PJvanMill. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Brunei[edit]

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

No substantial coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete As for Finland. This is a minor "X in Y" intersection based on it existing, rather than having had the attention paid to it which we require for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorse the observation of the nominator Nannadeem (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the topic itself (as opposed to individual facts contained in the article) is notable. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon Flexx[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article is filled with unreliable sources that are either gossip blogs or promotional websites. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. The awards and nominations the subject has received are not notable. The subject is still an up-and-coming artist who has not made a mark in the Ghanaian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I may incline towards delete but I'm not sure about the notability of the awards. Other than that, references are pure PR. One from Ghana Web is actually from GH Gossips. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lunar Clock (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award is from the student council of his university, so I don't think it carries much weight for notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Culture of Maharashtra. Merge from history is possible. Sandstein 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural activities of Maharashtra[edit]

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

Redundant content fork of Maharashtra#culture IW. (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork and plenty of original research. Not really a lot that can be merged. Ajf773 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Culture of Maharashtra as a valid content fork. I had to search for what the word Content Fork means on Wikipedia. Apparently the users above are referring to WP:CFORK. After checking that page I am convinced that this article is about a notable topic. The information is useful and must be mentioned at the Culture article. Wikipedia has many articles covering the "Culture of STATES" and I dont see why this cannot be kept. Cedix (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Redirect As Cedix noted, the article is a content fork of Culture of Maharashtra, a review of what material could be merged is necessary, but AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Cedix - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes of Creation[edit]

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

Non-notable game that has been in development for years that has yet to be released. Being published by a small game studio funded through Kickstarter. Delete per WP:NOTFUTURE. Mkdw ^talk 20:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a solid chunk of stuff in the VGSE, at least one of which is a good preview and several of which are from 2019. I lean toward a keep here. --Izno (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing even remotely recent. Would it not make sense to reassess if the game was actually released? Mkdw ^talk 23:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But recent isn't a criterion in any of our PAGs to exclude content? A positive indication the game won't release might be reasonable here, but 2019 is still within the grasp. And anyway, there have been other games that didn't release though it was expected. Delays are common, even if it weren't a Kickstarter game. --Izno (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about recentism. You brought up 2019 and previews as if it had any relevance to notability which it does not. It's either notable now or not. Im inclined to agree with Jovanmilic97 that regardless of the preview, trailer, and early user score pages you found on Google, it does not constitute significant coverage by independent and reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 21:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only good source that isn't an interview/WP:PRIMARY, discusses the game in-depth and isn't a routine announcement is [1]. I am fine with draftifying it until the full release comes out. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject definitely needs improvement. I've added two more sources from Bleeding Cool and Screen Rant. In worst case, moving to draft would be the best option. Lunar Clock (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator, as per WP:NOTFUTURE. Gritmem (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage at this stage. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said in my comment above, it fails WP:GNG with only one pre-release indepth coverage so far and not close to the release. It may be notable in the future, but not now. WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YPEE[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article is filled with unreliable sources that are either gossip blogs or promotional websites. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. All of the awards and nominations the subject has received are not notable. The subject is still an up-and-coming artist who has not made a mark in the Ghanaian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the Ghana Music Awards notable ? , imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and the Ghana Music Awards SA are two distinct awards. The former is notable but the latter isn't. The subject has not been nominated for a VGMA award. None of the awards he has been nominated are notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dripping with references, but very few seem to be WP:RS. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete all non-trivial mentions seem to be in unreliable sources, from what I can tell. PJvanMill (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bootsplash#Linux_distributions. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XSplash[edit]

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

Un-notable software program, only one source. This source also fails WP:GNG. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, XSplash shouldn't have it's own article. It could be merged into a new article about previous Ubuntu splash screen software together with Usplash though. - Flori4nKT A L K

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, even Usplash should be deleted, let alone this, but Plymouth is notable and in widely use since years ago.--Editor-1 (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bootsplash#Linux_distributions, where it is mentioned. The same could be done for Usplash and Plymouth until they are better developed. I was unable to find sources to satisfy WP:GNG, but these programs have basic facts that are verifiable and XSplash is a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bootsplash#Linux_distributions. The sole source is a blog, so it does not justify a standalone article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumantra Sumo Dutta[edit]

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

Repeatedly rejected at AfC, unilaterally moved to mainspace by one of the primary contributors. The provided coverage is limited to press releases, unreliable sources without bylines, WP:ROUTINE coverage, and trivial coverage in the form of softball interviews and quotes from the subject in the context of one of the companies that he has worked for. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnaf Lion (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)The person described here is a veteran of the Indian media industry and even though he has primarily worked in STAR, STAR is a behemoth player in the industry and his performance & contribution for STAR has actually impacted the industry notably. Unilateral decision of the primary contributor to move the article was motivated by his being a scholar of Indian sub-continent media industry. The citations inserted here are from sources that are notable among the industry critics. Also, a same version of the article was reviewed and approved in 2018. Therefore, the article shouldn't at all e deleted. Ahnaf Lion (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 review was conducted by Frayae, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet that was approving non-notable promotional articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still has the same fundamental problems as the version most recently rejected at AfC (link). Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete Purely promotional article that lacks evidence of passing WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. Coverage that is significant is either not independent or not reliable and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Practically unanimous, all deletes but one+nom were withdrawn after evidence of passing NFOOTY was presented. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lejla Basic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY; news coverage all routine for WP:GNG Mightytotems (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. She plays in the top-tier league in Sweden. That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that career top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, top-tier league in Sweden and looks like a callup to Bosnia & Herzegovina national team. WP:NFOOTY is unreliable. Search Swedish, Bosnian Google, do the translation, and expand the article and refs. Article could use expansion, improved references per WP:ATD. Here are a few to get you started:

https://www.laget.se/kiforebrodffalag/news/5123657/Lejla-Basic-uttagen-i-landslaget
https://www.vavel.com/en/international-football/2016/02/05/601358-lejla-basic-returns-to-kif-orebro.html
https://www.op.se/logga-in/mittfaltaren-har-blommat-ut-under-nya-tranaren-jag-har-fatt-ett-stort-fortroende

Hmlarson (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~delete~~keep - Article about semi-pro footballer who has spent time in the top- and second-levels of Swedish football, and one appearance for the Bosnia and Herzegovina national team (per [2]). According to Soccerway, Basic hasn't featured regularly for her club in the top-level (16 league matches with only 5 of those as a starter was her largest total for a season). As primarily a bench player, Basic just doesn't have significant online coverage in reliable sources - I've tried and found little more than Hmlarson mentions above (the Östersunds-Posten source I added to the article is behind a paywall, but if you search their site, it's the only non-routine coverage she gets from the paper). Although it scrapes by the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL, I ~~just cannot see~~worry that this article cannot satisfy~~ing~~ the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in a top tier league (Damallsvenskan). Meets WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silverseren^C 05:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing in a top division does not mean a player meets WP:NFOOTY. The league has to be fully-professional, which the Damallsvenskan is not. Number 5 7 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she clearly fails NFOOTY. Damallsvenskan is not a WP:FPL. No caps for national team either. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Playing in a top-tier league is irrelevant, the league must be fully professional (which hers is not). See WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an international player, meeting NFOOTBALL. Thanks for finding/adding the sources. Giant Snowman 20:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So literally no women's leagues outside of the US and UK count as fully professional? How convenient. Silver seren^C 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true - it's only the top division in the US and England that are fully pro. The Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish leagues aren't.Dougal18 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Keep per WP:NFOOTY, as she has a senior international cap. Number 5 7 22:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yep, looks like we've got the rudiments of GNG here. WP:NFOOTY is nonsense and not applicable to female players. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plays in the top of Damallsvenskan. NFOOTY clearly met. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Damallsvenskan is listed as a non-fully professional league at WP:FPL, so NFOOTY is not met. Number 5 7 12:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per The Drover's Wife. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per The Drover's Wife. (or delete the thousands of articles for equivalent male football players...) Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing GNG myself here, keep votes need to start talking about sources more. there's something here, but at best this is a no consensus at the moment and worst a delete. There's several keep votes here pushing an agenda rather than discuss the article. Unless additional comments are added in the next week or so I am of the mind to ignore them as not addressing the subject at hand. This would mean I would probably then close as delete base on the strength of the arguments presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTY. She played in an international match for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Croatia, and therefore passes NFOOTY criteria #3, "Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games." The fact that NFOOTY treats woman's football as inferior is a serious problem that should be rectified, but that is not a matter for this AfD. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a table to help assess compliance with the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She did play an international match for Bosnia and Herzegovina against Croatia as per this and hence shoudl pass WP:NFOOTY.Only thing was it a any Tier 1 International Match.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.op.se/logga-in/mittfaltaren-har-blommat-ut-under-nya-tranaren-jag-har-fatt-ett-stort-fortroende	Östersunds-Posten is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper for Jämtland County	? The source appears to discuss the subject directly and in detail, but it is hidden behind a paywall	? Unknown
https://www.laget.se/kiforebrodffalag/news/5612317	KIF Örebro DFF is Basic's employer, and the article is an interview with the subject	The football club published the interview	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=159&artikel=6561157	Sveriges Radio is a national public radio station	National public radio for Sweden	The source discusses the subject directly but not in detail	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Speedy Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY by virtue of playing an international match regardless of league status and also WP:GNG with ample sourcing including [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], plus all the sources above. And there are more but this is getting to be overkill. All of the delete !votes are based on the false premise that she fails NFOOTY. This should be speedily closed to avoid wasting any more time than it already has. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging Number 57 and BlameRuiner who both !voted delete based on NFOOTY before evidence of a clear pass via other criteria was discovered. Smartyllama (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets both GNG and WP:N. Not sure why this user is choosing now to do AFDs on notable female footballers. Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy Keep and Snow Close She is an internacional player, hence, she pass WP:NFOOTY. Since, the player clearly pass WP:NFOOTY, this should be closed.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she played for Bosnia (once). The Croatian FA don't have the game in their stats list though. Dougal18 (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddique Nazmul Alam[edit]

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

Secretary of a party's student organization is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. Via google search I have found routine coverage, interviews. These are not enough for passing WP:NPOL. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL. userdude 22:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student politicians to not pass WP:NPOL and subject does not pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom - MA Javadi (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per GPL93. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. The overall consensus is that the sources provided are insufficiently reliable to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 00:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corvid College[edit]

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

non notable "educational" movement - this is not an actual college or school. there is no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find any any coverage beyond what exists in the article. I do not find the existing sources sufficient for WP:NORG. userdude 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. userdude 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage outside some minor alternative rags, and does not meet NORG. No substantial edits after the SPA created it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the fairly extensive articles in The Bay Citizen and the Boston Phoenix cited in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:ORG, which in its first paragraph explicitly excludes "non-profit educational institutions" from its scope, does not apply here. "Not [being] an actual college or school", the existence of coverage in "minor alternative rags" and "no longer appears to exist" are likewise not coherent, policy-based arguments for deletion (if the last was we'd presumably delete The Beatles, the Holy Roman Empire, the Triceratops, etc.). We require coverage in sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; we don't require that sources be mainstream publications or that they claim to be politically neutral. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no but we do require significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have a wide readership, not hyper local rags and blog posts (Bay Citizen.) Your comparison to The Beatles is patently absurd. Praxidicae (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, absurdity was rather what I was going for. It was a light-hearted criticism of an odd tendency for otherwise sensible editors to pad out prod rationales with claims that really have nothing to do with whether an article should be deleted; I wouldn't worry too much about it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah, a blog hung off of an ephemeral alt weekly is nothing remotely close to meeting WP:RS. Ravenswing 01:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After making an effort at gemeral clean up, completing refs, and searching for additional sourcs, I found the original Corvid College in Boston apparently became "Greater Boston Free School" and the founder Eric Buck became affiliated with a mystic group, "Logos Tao Deus". There are a few Pinterest sources for the latter, but I found nothing that meets WP:RS. Fails GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an essay about an obscure....what? Movement, charismatic, group? I have to say, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone try to cite a campus radio station. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTESSAY... Just not. John from Idegon (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTEVERYTHING --- Steven655 (talk)
Delete - A very interesting concept, but the article's sources are not reliable. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Muette[edit]

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

No mentions in independant sources. Current sources are IMDB, the director's CV, the trailer of the film itself, and Wikidata. Makes no claim of notability. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODed a previous version of the page that was turned in to a draft, and the editor somehow managed to put a new, worse version into article space. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. The only argument for keeping is from User:Ɱ, but there's nothing policy-compliant there. Given that, I could justify closing this as delete, but the more reasonable path is to go with User:Bluerasberry's request to move this to draft space, where it can be worked on without any time pressure. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Student activism at the University of Virginia[edit]

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

While the article has 40 sources, at closer glance almost none of them are independent. Most seem to have been published by the organizations in question. The news coverage is also lacking, any coverage was mainly by the University of Virginia's student papers, which while could provide some supporting evidence, is not sufficient for notability purposes. A search for more general news coverage didn't turn up much, although its possible I'm not searching the right terms. Overall: lack of real sources = lack of notability. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I've been watching this article for a while, it came up in NPP and I just couldn't figure out what to do with it (so I left it where it was and hoped someone else would figure it out!). I'm still not absolutely certain. On the one hand, it's clear that there is a lot of student activism at UVa, and there probably are sources out there about the topic at a broad level. On the other, the article is a blend of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK and almost entirely based on primary sources. Based on the number of very new editors involved and their edit summaries, I think this was a class project, and I think everyone wanted to add their student organization's history of protesting, which we see get out of hand in several sections (see, for example, the "Black Students for Freedom" and "Union of University Students" sections, which (respectively) list the organization's founding principles and their org structure). Bottom line, the article in its current state does not establish notability of the topic and I doubt there is any amount of editing that could save it. If high-quality scholarly or news coverage is found (and I think it's at least possible that such coverage exists), I would support TNT + rewrite in place of deletion. creffett (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Bluerasberry's response below, I'd be willing to accept draftification with BR keeping an eye on it as an alternative to deletion. I'm happy to contribute to the discussion for improving it, but I expect that the vast majority of the article will need to be redone (thus my earlier TNT+rewrite comment). creffett (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm unsure without a closer review, but I disagree with the statement that "almost none of [the sources] are independent." The mere fact that a news source is adjacent to the topic it covers does not necessarily impact its independence. I think if it is kept, this article will need substantial work; there are probably ways to weave in regional or statewide publications in a way that supports the narrative, and there may be some difficult-to-support pieces that should be trimmed. Regardless, I am impressed by the effort to mine difficult-to-access sources for information for presentation in Wikipedia, and I hope some of this information can be retained in some form that fits Wikipedia's policies. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request either time extension or move to draft I am an experienced wiki editor at this university. I assisted in coordinating the collaboration between students, some instructors, and the library in developing this Wikipedia article. This was a class project, and the people involved would like to reflect on this deletion nomination and consider a response. COVID-19 has caused disruptions, but we are talking on the 9 April and might need longer to get feedback from student editors. I acknowledge that Wikipedia has standards which it should keep. For a more complete response, I would like to talk with instructors, librarians, and maybe students to support them in speaking for themselves. Thanks. If anyone has anything supportive to say about what went right then positive feedback is especially welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand It's evident this is a notable enough subject within the university's bubble - over 65 pieces have been published on the topic. That many people writing about an issue ensures it's a topic significant enough. As someone from a college with no current activism, and no compilations of historical activism, this is an important work. I would like to see the students and faculty develop this article to expand sourcing, including reputable campus/student publications like UVA Today and 'The Cavalier Daily. $ɱ$ (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wahbi Khazri. In each case the articles should be merged to their parent articles, leaving a redirect. MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Wahbi Khazri[edit]

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

Along with my earlier discussion, these three articles for me seem too miscellaneous to be actual articles and fail WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. None of these footballers are the top-scorers for the national team or have scored 25 goals. I'm not saying any of these players' international careers aren't notable, but they sure aren't notable enough to be stand-alone lists. Instead, they should be merged back into their main article and look like Christian Pulisic#International goals for example. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have once been top scorers for their countries. The same way we have these lists for current top scorers, it's only logical to have the same lists for former top scorers. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nehme1499... Not necessarily. All of the international goals lists in the career achievements category from former and non all-time topscorers are from players who have scored at least 25 goals, are one of the top 10 leading goalscorers for their nation, and are fairly recognizable for the average football fan. Wartan Ghazarian and Roda Antar don't satisfy any of those of three requirements except the second one. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @KingSkyLord: where did we get 25 goals from? It's just an arbitrary number as any other. I could easily say that all of the players in that category have at least 20 goals, and Roda Antar satisfies this condition. Also, your third condition is very subjective, and I don't think it's a reason to diminish the article. Roda Antar is very recognizable among Lebanese fans, and Bundesliga fans during the 2000s, as well as in China in the 2010s. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nehme1499: That's not what I meant. What I was trying to say is that those players' international careers are big enough to get their own in-depth sections in their own articles, but a little too niche to get their own personal lists. It just seems a little odd that someone who's only scored only 19 or 20 international goals has their list while several with 30 or 40 barely even have a small mention in their own articles. While it isn't questionable of their impact to the Lebanon national team, it isn't that notable enough that it deserves to be its own article. Both of them could easily fit back in their own articles, which aren't even that big (especially Ghazarian's which is less than 7,000 bytes). To be honest, we should have certain rules in place for the standards of these types of lists so that we don't end up in situations like these time and time, again and again. So here is my proposal for men's international goals lists. They should either be:
      1. The all-time topscorer of their country with at least 20 goals.
      
      2. A notable non all-time topscorer with at least 25 goals that is one of their national team's top 10 leading goalscorers with a very notable career.

Feel free to agree or disagree, but in my opinion these should be the standards. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wahbi_Khazri#International_goals, where a list of international goals is already located. Having the list as a stand-alone article fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This may be suitable for an article segment, but not an independent article. We don't have List of home runs hit by Babe Ruth, for example. Hog Farm (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Hog Farm: To be honest, I would just delete it entirely and not redirect at all. Also, scoring a home run in Major League Baseball and scoring a goal in international association football is completely different. Home runs are a very common feat due to the fact that baseball players usually play around 150 games a season. In international soccer, national teams play around 15 to 25 matches a year, with the chance of a player scoring or even being capped depending a lot on certain circumstances relating to the player, manager, and other eligible players who can play his position. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Babe Ruth hit over 700 home runs. A figure of over 50 international goals scored by a footballer is considered exceptional. There's simply no comparison -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back Those lists shouldn't of been removed from the player biography articles in the first place. This is a case of little information being scattered to too many different articles. I considered this bad form. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to the parent articles, no justification for a standalone article. Giant Snowman 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no justification for a stand-alone article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete this text that is typical of arbitrary glorification of persons and Merge back to the main article about Wahbi Khazri whatever can be verified from the deleted text. (Alternatively, how about separate entries for goals scored by a header, by a volley, and by a penalty?) -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of pizza varieties by country#New Zealand and List of pizza varieties by country#United States respectively. (If someone wants to change the merge target for the second one, go ahead). Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti pizza[edit]

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

Also

People can put whatever the hell they want on a pizza, but we don't need articles for any possible "[Topping] pizza", nor do we give anything Pizza Hut puts on their menu an article. Sources do not establish need for these. Meatball pizza article is just generalities about varieties of pizza in general and varieties of meatballs in general. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep What we don't need is another discussion for this when we've already got one. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking nonsense !vote. This is a different article and may a have a different AFD, else you'll complain at me for adding an additional page to a nomination after people have already commented. If as you said Pizza-ghetti is a "broad concept" that should cover both pizza with spaghetti on top and pizza with spaghetti on the side, then logically your vote should be to merge not to keep both articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My !vote stands. The nominator makes my point by adding a second article (meatball pizza) to this one. This all belongs at the other AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but (preferably) merge with Pizza-ghetti into a single article on Pizza and spaghetti. This seems to be a quirk along the lines of Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. BD2412 T 20:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pizza-ghetti is about the ghetti sold on the side, not baked into it. Dream Focus 06:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_pizza_varieties_by_country#New_Zealand. This article is almost entirely about this dish in NZ. We don't need separate articles for every pizza topping/combination -- a list seems like a very sensible place for that. If not the "by country" article, then just a list of pizza varieties seems viable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rhododendronites; no indication of independent notability. ——SN 54129 04:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of pizza varieties by country#New Zealand per Rhododendrites. Present article uses a combination of WP:NOTCOOKBOOK recipe links (the kind one could find for any other fill-in-the-blank pizza topping, such as potato pizza), and WP:NOTNEWS about the New Zealand prime minister. The latter does seem notable enough for a mention in the country list because it does seem to have at least some regional interest. I couldn't find any serious source touting the New York connection to meatball pizza, another cookbook recipe, so that one should just be deleted. StonyBrook (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BOTH Sometimes its called Spaghizza [11] There also a cooking show that mentioned it according to [12]. Plenty of coverage for the New Zealand thing, and Domino's Pizza even sells it in New Zealand. [13] Google image search for it, plenty of people cook this, it on recipe sites. Dream Focus 06:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WoOoOoW, Domino's sold it for a limited time in one country! I take it next up is Sweet Mango Habanero Wings, Parmesan Bread Bites, and Domino's Marbled Cookie Brownie™? Yes, let's become Wikirecipes, because we totally need articles for any recipe on the internet! Put it on Domino's_Pizza#Products, but we don't need separate articles for anything "plenty of people cook". And please give us a break with your ubiquitous ALL CAPS KEEP, you don't need to shout your votes. Reywas92^Talk 07:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not shouting, its making it easier to read, separating it from the text that comes after. If you imagine someone is shouting at you, that's your problem not mine. Anything that exists and gets coverage can have an article on Wikipedia, there no shortage of space. Dream Focus 14:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are decades of social norms that all-caps indicates shouting. You can't possibly be ignorant of that. ApLundell (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neglecting recipes, this article's sources are about the NZ Prime Minister's social media more than they're about pizza. It's like WP:ONEEVENT, but for a pizza. ApLundell (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of pizza varieties by country#New Zealand. That list can cover this topic and all the other myriad pizza toppings far better than this article. I think the fact that there are clear geographical differences between these two dishes means that a list which sorts by geography is probably better than a standalone article on Pizza and Spaghetti in general that would have to do the same. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein, Spaghetti pizza and Meatball pizza, but for whatever reasons, most users above appear to only be commenting about Spaghetti pizza. Perhaps the Meatball pizza article should be merged to List of pizza varieties by country § United States. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a source for meatball pizza being a US thing, similar to spaghetti and the NZ prime minister, then maybe, but I haven't seen one. StonyBrook (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another idea is to merge Meatball pizza with Meatball. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we already have Pepperoni pizza and Anchovie pizza redirecting to plain old Pizza, it makes sense to have Meatball pizza redirect there as well. StonyBrook (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Looking at their Revision histories, Pepperoni pizza and Anchovie pizza were never really developed much, so little information was lost by redirection. The pizza article also has almost no information about these topics other than mentioning them as ingrdients in passing. Conversely, I feel that the Meatball pizza article has some information worth merging per WP:ATD-M. See my !ote below for more info. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Meatball pizza to Meatball, which will serve to WP:PRESERVE some of the information and place it in a highly-related article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utevak, Arizona[edit]

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

It's not at all clear why an Arizona highway map showed this name in the middle of the desert, but there is just nothing there, either on topos or aerials. One person's Facebook profile claims that they are from there, but where is there? Searching doesn't produce anything substantive other than that, though I got several hits telling me the origin of the place name. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to [14], "and Utevak is a stock-watering point for Komelik villages." This mentions it also, says the name means "where Cattails grew". Another point on a topo map mis-categorized as a populated place. MB 02:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable watering hole. –dlthewave ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Llewellyn[edit]

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

Has recurring roles in a few TV shows from 1999 up until 2007, but not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator admite the subject has things that make him notable. Suffusion of Yellew (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete four or five minor roles, probably as an extra, with nothing else other than IMDB about him. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable actor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to say the nomination makes this guy sound more notable than he is. He appeared in two TV shows in one episode appearances. That is pretty much always a sign of not being notable. The article is also only sourced to IMDb. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Only one major rile in a NN film and two guest spots on TV shows, the 4th role unable to verify. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not scale WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject probably passes WP:NACTOR, as he has had main roles in at least two TV series. The reliability of some of the sources, however, is a little questionable—not necessarily the news outlets themselves, but the interview-style nature of the articles. The page also needs to be cleaned up, which I'm happy to do myself, provided the consensus is "Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are not notable films or television show hence fails WP:NACTOR point 1 The two serials are run of the mill just another serial telecast in Television in non Prime Time one ran for 3 months and the other for 5 months.Further not even a single reference is about the subject but mere mention of the subject in news stories about films or TV serials fails WP:SIGCOV and there is WP:REFBOMB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the shows ran for 90 episodes and the other for 99 episodes, which isn't bad, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the subject had lead roles in them. Also, the second and third references provided in the article are specifically about the subject (but they are, as I said above, interview-style articles). WP:GNG is the bigger problem, I think, and I hope better sources can be uncovered. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are hunderds of serials in various Indian channels which run for years and further this is just another run of the mill serial and not a notable Film or TV serial hence fails WP:NACTOR and none of the references pass WP:GNG

Ref 2 New couple in town The lead pair of Rettai Vaal Kuruvi, speak about their on screen chemistry is a brief interview but clearly fails WP:GNG and is about there role that is speak about their on screen chemistry and share experiences while shooting for the particular serial.

Ref 3 It is not a typical love story". is again brief about the serial fails WP:GNG same is the case with the all references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh of the Wizards, I'm really not understanding your distinction between an article about the serial and an article about the subject. With respect to the third reference, for example, the article is about the subject and his role in the serial. There is no requirement that an article about an actor must not discuss him in relation to his work. So I don't agree with you that the sources are not about the subject, but I do agree that they aren't great sources. As for whether the shows are notable, that's a matter of opinion—to me, they're notable enough. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I leave to the closer. Sorry if I was not precise meant to say they do not contribute towards signficant coverage and here in Ref 3 and it is stated Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan had to struggle a lot to get the role in Rettai Vaal Kuruvi. "I somehow got few scenes in OK Kanmani as Dulquer’s friend. Later, I got a few contacts, applied for auditions and eventually got this role,” says the MBA graduate from Coimbatore." .It is a case of WP:TOOSOON not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the two television series lead roles, unless they are shown to be non-notable series. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To me it seems the question now is whether the two TV series the subject is in are notable or not. And the conversation continue to develop. Conclusions are getting close but I think it deserves a bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per previous re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep on the basis of the two television series lead roles, as mentioned above Cedix (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)~~ pherhaps it is WP:TOOSOON. On second thoughts and reviewing more sources below, I have changed my mind. The detailed coverage is indeed lacking.--Cedix (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete serials had low TRP hence ended within months read the sources all of them are not indepth fails general notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.154.74 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP refers to Target rating point as this post about 27 Indian TV Shows that went Off Air with in 6 months due to TRP In India normally serials with average/Low TRP are ended within 6 months as is the case with thee 2 TV serials and those with high TRP go on much longer.As the subject also lacks Significant coverage and fails WP:GNG feel this should deleted .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject probably passes WP:NACTOR, as he has had lead roles in at least two TV series and a feature film. 27 Indian TV Shows that went Off Air with in 6 months due to TRP

The subject’s two shows are not in the above list. The link clearly says

Despite of popular Actors and good Concepts, TRP's are not the only reason for Shows going off air abruptly. Even Channel Polices or Channel and Production House issues can also be reason for good Shows ending’’

Ref #3 states that Star Vijay, the top GEC in Tamil was launching this serial @ prime slot of 9.00 PM IST with a strong Technical crew to attract the urban audiences and rise the Channel’s bar on Romantic series. Likewise Ref #6 and Ref #12 also states that Ninaikka Therindha Maname is a tad different serial to attract the family audience and is being launched @ a prime slot of 9.30 pm IST. It clearly emphasize that the subject “who is a popular actor through “Rettai Vaal Kuruvi” is playing the male lead in “Ninaikka Therindha Maname”

Anyone covered by another encyclopedic reference is considered notable enough for inclusion. This page should be kept and worked upon.Dowhatubelieve (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Subject lacks significant coverage fails hence fails WP:GNG which is not being questioned .He is the lead in just 2 serials and both of them were ended within 6 months. Nactor states had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production.Further his film roles are not notable he himnself states that got only few scenes.He has himself stated that "".I somehow got few scenes in OK Kanmani as Dulquer’s friend. Later, I got a few contacts, applied for auditions and eventually got this role,” says the MBA graduate from Coimbatore." He is a upcoming actor.Just now went this report Now TRP is main factor Low TRP rating brings Paapa Pandu 2 to an end.Notable Tamil serials go on for years if there TRP is good.Änyway I leave it to the closer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has featured in only a handful of films and TV series which is a kind of WP:TOOSOON. The subject passes WP:NACTOR but fails to comply with WP:GNG. Despite playing lead roles in two TV series, I agree with the nom that the subject has featured in both TV series which were relatively short. The subject can become popular in the future and for the time being it should be treated as WP:TOOSOON. Abishe (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Thank you for confirming that the subject passes WP:NACTOR.

The references are relevant to the subject and his works and the sources are independent and Non promotional.

Ref #1 - Just an intro interview.

Ref #2 – Small, states that he is an alumini from PSG tech

Ref #3 – Adds notability to series “Rettai Vaal Kuruvi” as a lead, Top GEC, Prime Slot, Strong Technical crew

Ref #4 – The lead pair of Rettai Vaal Kuruvi talk about their onscreen Chemistry, which is the talk of the town and other interests.

Ref #5 – states how the subject got the opportunity in his Debut Series as a Lead and his role in the serial

Ref #6 – Adds Notability to the series Ninaikka Therindha Maname as a lead, Top GEC, Prime Slot. It adds a small praise stating that the actor who is popular thru RVK is the male lead

Ref #7 – when Small screens are dominated by women-oriented serials, they are top handsome hunks who charm you away – Speaks abt the Subject, the current craze, onscreen chemistry, Hobbies and the ambitions. (Translate)

Ref #8 – More detailed talk on the Subject, his gratefulness to the channel, his second role as a lead in NTM, his commercials, his first feature film as a lead. (Translate)

Ref #9 – Award winning shortfilm with over 5M Views

Ref #10 – The short film KOK is trending online and provides a mini review on the film. While talking abt the subject, his role as a cop states he is handsome, praises his performance and says he is sure to go places in the industry

(Translate)

Ref #11 – Award winning Shortfilm with over 3M views

Ref #12 - Adds Notability to the series Ninaikka Theindha Maname as a lead, Top GEC, Prime Slot, a Family Drama. It quotes the subject as ‘Rettai Vaal Kuruvi’ Fame actor.

Ref #13

Ref #14

Ref #15

Ref #16

Ref #17 – A few of the subject’s TV Commercials pairing with the Top models of the country for Significant Brands.

Ref#18 – Coverage on his first feature Film as a lead, the plot and the cast and crew

Ref #19, Ref #20 – The Subject’s other award-winning short films

Ref #21, Ref #22 – The Subject’s collaboration with Sony for his Music albums.

Cumulatively, the references add an OK notability and overall verifiability to all the subject’s works. There are always better references around, and they can be worked upon. I re-iterate this page should be kept. Few Clean ups are reqd tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowhatubelieve (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dowhatubelieve has made no other contributions to Wikipedia aside from this discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the kamikaze overkill of allegedly supporting references, all we have at the end of the day are two roles in a TV series and one film appearance. The rest are interviews, promotions, and self-promotions on YouTube and elsewhere. The subject is simply not qualified for a stand-alone Wikipedia article because it distinctly fails WP:NACTOR. No significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, no large fan base or a significant cult following, and no unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Ergo, not Wikinotable enough. -The Gnome (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the two sources satisfy policy; more sources also added by Airborne84. (non-admin closure) --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 00:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LandLords[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability; nothing beyond the single review already listed in the article could be found in the 8(!) Google hits[15]. Article was despite its short length originally a copyvio of that one review, but has now been very slightly paraphrased after these problems were pointed out to the creator. No obvious redirect target as the company has no article. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have said delete when I first came across it. But I went through some old out-of-print magazines I have and found a review in a 1985 issue of Paper Mayhem magazine (now added). Believe that two independent reviews/articles of this type in different publications meets Wikipedia's standard for notability. Also, given that my collection of old, out-of-print magazines of the era is far from comprehensive, since two reviews have surfaced, I see no reason why there wouldn't be more out there, so I'm comfortable pointing to WP:NEXIST at this point as well. Airborne84 (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the two reviews satisfy GNG. WP:NGAME seems to be specific to video games rather than all games, but it seems to be a GNG rephrase anyway. Two reviews is also enough to satisfy a specific WP:NBOOK criteria, and though i know this is not a book, I just point out the precedent for any people that demand WP:THREE in their GNG interpretation. -2pou (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient RS to establish GNG. The source of the two reviews are not in the spirit of WP:NBOOK. Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is satisfied by the reviews found. Chetsford's view of the "spirit of NBOOK" has not been supported either by policy or by previous AfD outcomes. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Petrified Forest National Park. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Ranch, Arizona[edit]

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

Milky Ranch Road leads to... a ranch. It's obviously a ranch, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, potential Redirect to Petrified Forest National Park. Definitely not a populated place, but a working cattle ranch. Looks like its land is partially within the National Park and could be mentioned there, especially if the historic aspects and associated artifacts mentioned on the ranch's website can be substantiated with independent sources. MB 16:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the national park, since it is part of the park. Might even deserve a mention about the history, but does not seem to be an independent populated place. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghat Ghat Ka Paani[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process. No indication of wp:notability. Of the two references given, one is to their own web site and the other is to an article that has one paragraph on it. Another concern is that editor is obviously wiki-experienced but created the full article upon their 6th lifetime edit under that user name. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Mussies[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC - the sources consist primarily of namechecks, sometimes literally just that. SCOPUS lists an h-index of 2, Google Scholar has no h-index. I cannot find any sources directly about the subject (per WP:GNG). Deleted A7 in January and tagged again as A7 in February but declined as also tagged G4 (which does not apply to prior speedy); it's unclear the claim of A7 was investiugated then. There's only one substantive editor of both the deleted and the current versions and most of the article consists of primary-sourced expositions of the subject's views. Guy (help!) 12:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject doesn't have a Google Scholar profile, so it doesn't calculate an h-index for him, but this is a little misleading. From a casual perusal, it looks like his h-index is at least 10. His Koine Greek book has 86 GS citations. It may be that some of these are not showing up in Scopus because of their age. It's on the light side for WP:NPROF, but plausible. A WP:NAUTHOR case also looks possible, though finding reviews of works this old can be difficult (I didn't immediately succeed). I share some of your concerns about the current state of the article, and note that the main contributing editor seems to be pushing a POV. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The subject appears to have been active 1971-2001. The Internet was in its infancy in that time. Furthermore, citation indices developed for science often do not pick up arts subjects, because they do not capture data from the relevant journals. This is likely to be particularly severe for theology. So not judge the past by to9day's standards. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The citations look reasonably solid, and this gives a marginal case for WP:NPROF. I didn't find reviews (probably because of the age of them), but some of his books are widely held according to WorldCat. The combination of the two looks like a reasonable keep case. I also considered a delete argument per WP:TNT, but I removed the primary-sourced bulk of the article, and what was left still seems to me a reasonable stub. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic. The lewvel of citations is not enough to meet academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, because the fdensity of publication in the field is so much lower--there are many fewer than 1%as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable peson to be cited. Any book with as many as 86 citations in these fields is quite a bit beyond the usual, and sufficient for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: G. Mussies is notable due following reasons
- He has been highly influential (i. e. to Bart D. Ehrman, Stanley E. Porter, Andrew Pitts, Frank E. Shaw, David Edward Aune, Bernhard Lang, emeritus professor Pieter Willem van der Horst, Joseph Alexander Smith, David Elton Graves, Eve-Marie Becker, Gregory S. Paulson, professor David Mathewson, professor Judith Kovacs, professor Christopher Rowland (theologian), J. T. Pennington, R. M. Royalty, S. Bøe, E. S. Fiorenza, G. Cambiano, L. Canfora, D. Lanza, J. Frösén, J. Hernández, C. H. Giblin, New Testament Studies, P. A. Rainbow, S. K. Tonstad, J. Moo, Novum Testamentum, I. Kaufmann, J. Barton, A. Gerdmar, professor A. H. M. Kessels, Vigiliae christianae, K. Bentein, J. M. Watt, A. Hilhorst, W. A. Smith, S. Grabiner, J. A. Du Rand, Neotestamentica, D. Mathewson, J. López, C. J. Rotz, M. Streett, U. Sim, WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, M. Silva, New Testament studies, M. Janse, Glotta, F Plank, Lingue e linguaggio, J. Paulien, M. A. Novak, Vigiliae Christianae, A. S. Bandy, R. J. Decker, J. Dochhorn, professor P. G. R. De Villiers, Acta Patristica et Byzantina, J. Puthussery, R. E. Winkle, A. C. Russo, professor P. R. Trebilco, K. Bentein, J Joosten, Analecta Bruxellensia, M. Karrer, Journal of Early Christian History, M. G. Michael, W. S. Vorster, J. E. Botha, W. S. Vorster, A. E. Stewart, S. C. Grabiner, P. Malik, R. Mach, S. Santafé Soler, B. M. Fanning, A. Hoeck, N. Birdsall, The Classical Review, S. U. Dixon, E. F. d'Arcier, P. Kretschmer, W. Kroll, S. S. Soler, S. N. Gundry, C. M. Pate, L. G. Ureña, Gregorianum, M. A. Haukaas, I. M. Meira Junior, L. F. Moț, V. Shore, J. C. Poirier, P. J. Sijpesteijn, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, K. Bentein, Journal of Greek Linguistics, L. DiTommaso, M. A. Dudreck, J. R. Dickson, S. K. Tonstad, S. E. Runge, P. I. Frank, J. E. Raddatz, R. Mathiesen, T. Brookins, Journal of Biblical Literature, J. Meares, R. M. Lozano, M. Jagiełło, Classica Cracoviensia, A. Vrhovnik, HTS Teologiese Studies, P. J. Tomson, L. I. Levine, Y. L. Leṿin, M. P. Fernández, L. G. Perdue, A. Mendelson, R. Hvalvik, K. E. Corley, H. A. Green, R. Hachlili, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental, H. Gzella, S. Cappelletti, L. H. Feldman, Hebrew Union College Annual, N. Belayche, M. F. Bird, G. K. Giannakis, V. Bubeník, E. Crespo, C. Golston, A. M. Gale, C. R. Holladay, C. Perrot, S. Freyne, A. Gerdmar, professor B. Z. Rosenfeld, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, H. Debel, Journal for the Study of Judaism, H. D. Betz, Studia theologica, Bulletin for Biblical Research, R. T. Macfarlane, Brigham Young University Studies, P. Grelot, Revue Biblique, R. M. Victor, T. J. Bauer, H. Jason, Asian folklore studies, R. Laham Cohen, L. H. Schiffman, S. Tzoref, W. S. Vorster, J. E. Botha, E. Liebowitz, B. P. Kantor, professor M. Mancini, S. D. Charlesworth, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, D. McClister, M. O. Wise, E Bons, Journal for the Study of Judaism, M. Vierros, Ty. Neil, J. M. McKay Jr, L. Deiss, N. C. Croy, W. B. Russell, L. H. KANT, A. Pitts, R. Hausoul, B. Braasch, А. В. Вдовиченко, professor G. Fowden, E. S. Gruen, Okasha El Daly, P. Kingsley, professor Yossi Shavit, P. Wendland, K, H, Lindbeck, A Mastrocinque, G. Aijmer, M. Stadler, Antike Welt, professor L. Baynes, H. R. Broderick, S. Inowlocki, Revue de philosophie ancienne, D. Barbu, professor R. Heckl, Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, K. Mesler, G Bąkowska-Czerner, The Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture, J. F. Quack, The Dynamics of Transculturality, Am Ursprung der jüdischen Hermeneutik des Pentateuchs, professor E. M. Becker, C. Pisano, J. T. Westerfeld, M. Mulsow, professor Å Boholm, F. V. Reiterer, B. Ego, T. Nicklas, G. T. Johnston, P. Borgeaud, H. M. Cotton, The Journal of Roman Studies, G. F. Snyder S. Fine, L. V. Rutgers. Jewish Studies Quarterly, R. Bauckham, The Journal of Theological Studies, C. C. Caragounis, K. B. Stern, J. S. McLaren, S. Honigman, M. Williams, H. Niquet, Scripta classica israelica, J. K. Aitken, J. C. Paget, M. Marciak, S. Kreuzer, M. Sigismund, W. Kraus, S. Zsuzsanna, R. S. Kraemer, I. Moga, Historia antiqua, J. N. Ford, M. Morgenstern, É. Parmentier, B. W. Winter, J. A. Darr, C. Forbes,).
- This time I will refer to Google Scholar, in which the first 5 pages present 849 citations, without entering the documents that present more than one version.
- Mussies is very known in New Testamentary studies, koine Greek, Hebrew Gospel Hyphotesis, Biblical Studies, Exegesis, etc.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific criteria notes is fulfilled 1, 4 and 7.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals is fulfilled 1 and 2.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria is fulfilled.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite JLACO's ineffective and TLDR defense above. I found enough reviews on JSTOR alone to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR – Dio Chrysostom: [16], [17]; Morphology of Koine: [18], [19], [20]; Der lateinische Text: [21], [22], [23]; Studies in Egyptian Religion: [24]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posterrorism[edit]

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

This event seems to fail WP:NEVENT/GNG. Prior PROD/CSD by User:LuK3 and User:Mcampany. I can't find any in-depth coverage, just few mentions in passing. Possibly something exists outside English, I google translated a few pages but all I see are mentions on passing. Also a red flag given this is a well-formatted entry created by a WP:SPI (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hossein Mohammadi Vahidi); which likely means undisclosed WP:PAID. Don't be mislead by WP:GOOGLEHITS, for some reason google adds hits for posterror (common comp science term which I am surprised doesn't have an entry) to the mix. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any significant coverage in any major publications, just passing mentions and primary sources. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just promotional spam for an event.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't found any independent, reliable sources about this poster contest. Mcampany (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable event. The sources in the article are either primary, press-releases, or call for entries. WP:GNG fail. Netherzone (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Gritmem (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JBW (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Mohammadi Vahidi[edit]

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

I have some concerns on whether this meets WP:NARTIST. English coverage shows only in passing mentions, what I Google Translated is not much better. Some minor awards and exhibitions, overall, I can't see what would make him notable. Not every budding artist is encyclopedic. Entry created by WP:SPA, which also does not build confidence (well formatted, etc. - suspect undisclosed WP:PAID per WP:DUCK). See also other related entry created by him (Posterrorism). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stay : I'm improving the article,I ask others to help me improve this article, please guide me. Other Graphic designers have articles on Wikipedia. Winning the award from Icograda is a special event.The same award alone can make a person important--Hesamlv (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) sock vote struck.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Sockpuppet_investigations/Hesamlv for more information.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone who has been in dozens of international exhibitions, and curated many more is by no means a "budding artist". That said, after trimming the article of fluff, there is very little coverage and I cannot find more. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bronze medal assert some notability but not enough for Wikipedia. Most Persian sources not reliable and not important! Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No legit claim of notability. Awards seem largely unnotable and no SIGCOV to overcome that. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stay I believe he is known for his presence ... at least in his workd field--Jalalgold (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stay This is like many articles about graphic designers.I also agree that it should remain and be more complete--Mrarta (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Struck two !votes per SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hesamlv.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not perform notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search using his name in native language has multiple coverage[25]. Gritmem (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I translated a few of those, they are VERY poor sources and mostly basic listings or passing mentions I could see nothing in-depth? Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gritmem: Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read that essay but my argument is not about Google hits exist but multiple sources exist in Persian language which can be accessed through that Google search link I posted. I do not know the Persian language and Google translate is not a great tool for translation or identifying reliability so I will leave this to you guys to decide. If sources are passing mentions and the topic fails to satisfy the notability guidelines then it is a delete from me. Gritmem (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It seems like a consensus has developed - grounded on a detailed source analysis - that the topic isn't notable, has promotionalism concerns and should be salted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Maheshwari[edit]

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

This article was created and deleted over seven times so was salted against future recreation. On looking into it, each article had been very badly written and poorly sourced, such that it was difficult to see if the subject had any notability. I did some research and found some sources, so decided to help form an article using decent sources. I think notability has now been established, though it is fairly borderline, and a number of the sources that looked good on first glance turned out to be plausible looking blogs or self-published books - something which is fairly common in India. What concerned me as I worked on the article was that even the reliable sources were simply repeating dubious information from the subject's own website. So some facts are hard to verify - for example a number of sources say Maheshwari has "A Pioneer of Tomorrow Award by ET Now" - but research indicates there is no award by that name - there is a "Leaders of Tomorrow Award" given by ET Now, but no Pioneer of Tomorrow. This is clearly a translation error, but it is interesting that any search for Pioneer of Tomorrow Award given by ET Now only returns results which mention Maheshwari, and that the information in those sources mirrors that of Maheshwari's own website. It is clear that Maheshwari is self-promotional, and has used the Indian media well. But despite that, I feel notability has been established given the number of major Indian sources which mention him in detail.

Listing here because of the deletion history of this subject. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is discussed by several notable Indian newspapers for both their ImagesBazzar business and their YouTube channel, and we now do accept YouTube personalities - List of YouTubers. SilkTork (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the contention vis-a-vis List of YouTubers. What does the existence of the list have to do with an individual article? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG who has !voted to delete biography where 1.2 million Instagram followers was asserted ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subjects notability is proved not only by his YouTube channel but also as the owner of images bazaar.Kashish pall (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said at the AfD being referrred to, " . The article. is clearly promotional -- and the combination of promotionalism and dubious or borderline notability is an excellent reason for deletion. If anything , the promotionalism is more important--we do not accept promotional articles no matter how notable the subject" The number of followers is thus not the key factor. If it were, I think our precedent is against considering it to prove notability ; I personally have in the past been open to considering great popularity to imply notability, but I am not sure I would say the same now, because of the rise of promotionalism; using this as a deciding factor would in practice encourage promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and fails NBIO to boot. The section about his businesses can be discarded. The section about awards has issues pointed out by the nominator. The section about the YT channel is irrelevant -- subscribers does not equate to notability. The remaining biographical stuff is too slight and insubstantial to hold up NBIO. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: If it is so then why Ashish Chanchlani is there?Kashish pall (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not persuasive here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying on the sourcing problems in §Enterpreneur. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and sources strictly about the business, not the individual, aren't useful here. This is the case for source #3. Source #1 is very weakly useful -- it mentions his college prior to dropping out. Sources #9 and #10 are interviews and therefore obviously do not help establish notability defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In summary, the sources in this section mirror the problems overall -- either way too distant from the subject, or way too close. There just isn't enough independent material specifically about this individual for an encyclopedic biography. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-salt Yesterday, I tried cleaning up the article to see what would remain once some unreliable sourcing was removed; from the article and talkpage history I see that SilkTork has made a similar effort in face of continual addition of more dubious and promotional content. The more closely I look at the sourcing, the more obvious it becomes that this whole thing is a house of cards with no independent reporting/verification of the subjects claims, and that the recent article revival is likely a continuation of COI/undisclosed paid editing seen before. See below for an analysis of the major available sources:

Source analysis

Promotional website celebrityearnings.com, exchange4media.com, iwmbuzz.com, theindianwire.com, indianinfoline.com, xpert.tv, thefamouspeople.com etc. None of these are reliable and/or mainstream sources. Especially in the sphere of not-so-famous Indians such pay-for-publicity websites, which are often transitory in nature, abound.
Press releases either on the website of PR wire-services, such as businesswireindia.com and prnewswire.com, or published unedited on other news sites, such as Financial Express or EDN.
Social Blade a dubious/promotional source for anything beyond the raw YouTube follower count; and YouTube follower counts by themselves should not be taken as a basis for notability.
Self-published book Passion to Profession by a non-expert
Mainstream news sites Initially I thought that profiles in more mainstream Indian press like Bhaskar, and News18 would establish notability and help us write a decent article on wikipedia. But these turn out to be not merely soft-focus puff pieces, but lightly-edited translations of the subject's own website (and yes, I confirmed that the profile on the personal website pre-dated the ones in the media). To wit, compare:

Sandeep Maheshwari is a name among millions who struggled, failed and surged ahead in search of success, happiness and contentment. Just like any middle class guy, he too had a bunch of unclear dreams and a blurred vision of his goals in life...
— www.sandeepmaheshwari.com

Sandeep Maheshwari's name is included in the list of people who struggled, failed but did not give up their insistence to succeed. Like a young man from any middle class family, he too had vague dreams and blurred goals...
— Google translation of the Bhaskar article

On Sandeep's own website, he introduces himself like this- 'Sandeep Maheshwari is one of the millions of names who have struggled, failed and progressed in search of success. Like any middle-class boy, he too had many vague dreams and blurred vision of life's goals...
— Google translation of the News18 article

Worse, these articles uncritically repeat false claims, such as that of the subject having set a world record, which the credited source does not claim.

Given the dearth of reliable independent sources, the subject fails the WP:GNG requirements. As for notability as an entrepreneur: while the circa 2009-10 recognition by BW and British council (neither of which are notable awards by themselves) do show early promise, there is no independent indication that the businesses that were started were successful, or are even an ongoing enterprise. And, as a Youtube personality, there is little to go on besides the follower count. Finally, the article history outlined by SilkTork and the analaysis of the sources above, indicates that there has been a concerted effort at promotion of the subject on- and off-wiki; so we should be extra careful in examining sources so that we don't simply end up regurgitating poorly recycled content from the subject's self-written bio. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC) (Fixed a link. Abecedare (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I have changed few things I think it requires one more look. You have wrong mentioned here about Bhaskar the link is going to news 18 and Bhaskar is just now I added. Kashish pall (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the cut-n-paste error. I have fixed the link to the Bhaskar article in my above post. Abecedare (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

credited source it is not necessary the book contains all records of India as it is of 2018 book while Sandeep Maheshwari made record in 2003 . As per your wish I put one YouTube source to prove it I know it can't prove notability but still I put to prove it.

Sandeep Maheshwari already explore his story publicly since from 2009 on CNBC TV 18, IBN7 etc. And then again on his site and on his seminars of YouTube videos in 2012 and again on 2017 . He couldn't lie repeatedly and News 18 and Bhaskar use few information and only by analysing the reality of his life. We can use the information and if any dought create we couldn't use the material which seems to be copied but can use those information which is not copied from his site. Kashish pall (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more link of Anandabazar [26] . This is an eastern side news paper while Sandeep Maheshwari lives in northern side. So definitely they do some searches definitely and all the newspapers can't be write wrong information. Means something is true in these sources. This is his fault that he told his story to everyone and everywhere. Kashish pall (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. When looking towards the article editiors should check the List of Youtubers as there are few Youtuber who has border line notability like Ashish Chanchlani. It has total four references.Kashish pall (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not persuasive here. Plus, lists have different criteria than standalone articles; WP:CSC. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's a mistake.Kashish pall (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting. I am waiting for the results. What you have decided all ? Kashish pall (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashish pall: In normal course deletion discussions are open for around a week. They are then reviewed by an independent editor/admin who makes the call on whether there is a policy-based consensus to retain or delete the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

salted. Article now salted and need one more look for review. Kashish pall (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Gritmem (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-SALT Promotional bio and fails WP:GNG per source analysis. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-salt- Promotional WP:BLP that is maintained by what is mostly an WP:SPA. Also agree with Abecedare above about the sourcing. 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.K. Mohammed[edit]

Nominating for speedy deletion, non notable. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up nom - there is another for him at the top of the page. Keep per there. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I think he is one of the missing persons in Kerala as per reliable sources. No more notability. Actually he is not listed in the official list of Missing Persons published by Kerala Police. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The subject passes WP:GNG. A number of references are available there.

1: Signs Magazine, Issue 4
2: The sad fate of Chekannur case
3: Chekannur Maulavi Case
Many more references can be easily traced. Easy to verify notability. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a report on the Business Standard - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a notable Quranist, founded Quran Sunnath Society which disregards Hadith per |India's First Woman Imam - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aafī.— Hammad (Talk!) 05:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable cleric--Irshadpp (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hammad|(Talk!)]] 05:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep After going through the article and the links, I think Wikipedia must have this article. The links presented by some users above show that this is a well covered case. We have such articles about popular missing persons in South Africa and America as well. So I dont agree with users who want this to be deleted. Cedix (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chekannur Maulavi Case is definately notable and clearly most of ther references are about the case.Note the title P.K. Mohammed has been moved to Chekannur Maulavi Case at it is clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets WP:GNG. Gritmem (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. K. Govindan[edit]

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

Notability as per Wikipedia policy. Saul0fTarsus (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Saul0fTarsus (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checked for WP:NACADEMIC for criteria 1 (via citations for major publications) via Google Scholar. The only highly-cited piece was a review article he wrote in 1990, Character recognition—a review, with 600+ cites shown via google scholar. I am unsure whether this is sufficient, but there it is. Jlevi (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think one well-cited review article is enough by itself for WP:PROF#C1, and the rest of the citation record does not impress me. Our article says he wrote 20 books, which is also not enough by itself for notability, but if someone can turn up multiple reviews of multiple books I could change my mind based on WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF and could not find any reviews for his books to pass WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Reads more like a CV than an article as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no reliable sourcing for this subject. Koridas (Speak) 16:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep in the sense of "do not delete". There is a very strong argument that this would be better-treated as part of NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, as there's clearly a large level of overlap here. However, there's also a good amount of participants arguing that these are separately notable, possibly as an England-specific effort rather than a UK-wide one. Numerically these two positions are split, and all we can definitely determine from this discussion is that it should be kept in some form. A merge discussion should be held on the talk page for interested parties to figure this out, but from the perspective of "articles for deletion" we can confidently state that no, it's not being deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 01:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Nightingale Hospitals[edit]

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

There is very little content that can be placed in this article, as most of the information will be specific to each of the separate hospitals. Also, since the NHS is devolved, it is unlikely that the hospital in Scotland will use the "Nightingale" name.

I suggest that generic information about these hospitals can be moved to the article about the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom, whilst we maintain the individual articles for each hospital. Elshad (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This NHS England initiative is notable in its own right, as it has ample mass RS media coverage. Sure the non-NHS-England stuff (hospitals in NI, Scotland and Wales) should go elsewhere, but I think this article should stay as it is. It could be that individual "NHS Nightingale Hospital..." hospitals become notable in their own right too - as the NHS Nightingale Hospital London already has (though its article is suffering from a merge/don't move/don't deadlock at the moment) - in which case new articles could be spun off for them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The umbrella concept—as well as the individual hospitals—has received sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources; WP:NORG is passed. ——SN 54129 10:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ~~NHS Nightingale Hospital~~ NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. As I've already said on talkpages, there's enough content for one article- which should cover all hospitals- but not enough content for every hospital to have its own article. No preference on which way the merge happens. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change merge target in light of new article creations. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I also added a note to this AfD on Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospital, as there's many active editors/discussions about the hospitals there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As The Anome implies on Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospital, one problem here is that the name "NHS Nightingale Hospital" seems only to be being used for the planned hospitals in England, not for the one in Wales or the mooted one in Scotland. Merging everything into one article makes sense, but calling that something like The Anome's suggestion of NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals perhaps makes more sense? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireLad: but this article was created to cover just the NHS England hospitals when the one at Ecxel was announced, because that is logical given that each of the UK's four constituent countries has their own independent health services, each with their own policies and priorities, and each under a different government. Why confuse the subject by trying to cover them all in this article too? I started a discussion at Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospitals#Scope of this "Nightingale Hospitals" article? yesterday to discuss the scope, please continue with this point there. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireLad and DeFacto: Just to clarify my intentions, when I created this article, my intention was to create an article for the UK-wide effort, but at that time I had no appropriate name. I don't think we need articles for each region: nor indeed every individual stadium field hospital. One article for the national effort, and one for each individually notable mega-field-hospital seems appropriate to me. -- The Anome (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: please continue that separate discussion at Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospitals#Scope of this "Nightingale Hospitals" article?. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NORG, and ~~move~~ merge this overall article to NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. However, each of the major hospitals (definitely, the London one, just for starters) will be independently noteworthy, and will deserve its own main article. Just for example, we have independent articles about both the University of Bristol Dental Hospital and Bristol Eye Hospital, two tiny hospitals in a provincial city that are still clearly individually noteworthy; are you saying that each of the vast, unprecendented Nightingale Hospitals are not individually article-worthy, in addition to the massive hospital-building effort that is unprecendented in British history and independently noteworthy in its own right? -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: I oppose that move (which has its own separate discussion here) without first gaining a consensus to broaden the scope to cover all the temporary hospitals of all the four independent health services involved in the UK. There is a discussion on that here: Talk:NHS Nightingale Hospitals#Scope of this "Nightingale Hospitals" article?. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, the scope of that article was initially, and always has been, the national effort. You seem to be attempting to focus it down to a regional level, using the title of the article as a rationale, instead of changing the title of the article to reflect the content of the article. Do you really want one article for each of the four regions? If they are created, I think you will find them being merged eventually. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've changed "keep and move" in my opinion above to "keep and merge", given the existence of the new article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: it's not a new article, it's another copy of this article, but without the all-essential history behind it. Do you honestly believe that the appropriate way to evolve this content is to bypass the talkpage and simply create a new copy of the article, with a name that was unanimously rejected for this article, and to add the content there that you couldn't get consensus to add here? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We obviously have a developing situation as field hospitals are built in various countries. Deletion is not appropriate as we should develop and adjust the content while maintaining an audit trail visible to all. See WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals as per Andy Mabbett. We now have three articles all overlapping; NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, NHS Nightingale Hospital and NHS Nightingale Hospitals. We only need one. If necessary they can be spun out/split if, and only if, enough detailed information comes out about some of them. The joy of all things (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, per Andy Mabbett. Having this article in addition to the UK one seems unnecessarily confusing for the reader, and there isn't so much content that it needs its own article. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. Certainly notable but best for the reader to have one central article and spin off new articles if enough information later. |→ Spaully ^~talk~ 01:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: this is getting very weird. At 16:47 on 31 March 2020 the article NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals was created as an unattributed (copyvio?) copy&paste-based reincarnation of this article at that time. Just two minutes later this article's content was heavily trimmed to cover just the NHS England hospitals. Then at 18:26 on 31 March 2020 a move proposal to rename this article to "NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals" (the same name as the new copy/paste article) was withdrawn as there was unanimity not to move it. Now there is support (@Pigsonthewing, The joy of all things, YorkshireLad, and Spaully:) for merging this original article into the new copy/paste article. Surely if we are going to, effectively, delete one of these two articles, it should be that copied article, not this one, that is removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I didn't investigate deeply, which I accept was wrong. The fact that we have three short articles covering one subject isn't right, and if this is a copy and paste job then yes the other should be kept and this deleted. To be honest, the waters are so muddied now, I don't know which is which. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, are you trying to insinuate something? I had absolutely nothing to do with copying the page or trimming this one; if NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals is indeed a copyvio from this page, then I'd support deleting that page, restoring the full content of this one, and then moving this page to the title I think is more suitable—or something that resolves the copyvio. I didn't see the move proposal before it was withdrawn, but I would have supported the proposal. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 08:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireLad: sorry, no, of course I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. I was just commenting the weird morphing and confusion that's going on in this subject, and how one minute the use of that new name was unanimously rejected, and then, a very short time after the same name was used for a clone article of this one, it was being suggested that this original article be merged into it. There was definately no insinuation intended! -- DeFacto (talk). 09:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto, Thanks for clarifying. :-) I agree, the whole thing has been a mess! YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: You cannot have it both ways. It's obviously not a copyvio, since all content was a Wikipedia-to-Wikipedia shift, see the new article's talk page. At most, it's an article fork. However, by your own criteria, this cannot be an article fork, since you have repeatedly asserted that the UK-wide effort and the "Nightingale" effort are distinct. You might want to note that I actually created that original article to cover the UK-wide situation, which you then decided to change the focus of to only the "Nightingale" hospitals, deleting much of the original article as out-of-scope. Following discussion on the talkpage of that article (see here) you appear to have acknowledged that your only objection to the creation of a separate article about the UK-wide situation was a lack of cites to show that this was an indepedently notable topic. Having addressed your objections with an abundance of citations to reliable sources, I then created the UK-wide article, substantially from text that you had deleted from the previous article as out-of-scope. Now you are shifting the goalposts again. Please choose one position and stick to it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: I see you've now added some acknowledgement of the article history to the article talkpage. It was in contravention of the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia guideline when I wrote the above, before you added that to the talkpage. And no, you cannot use my opinions on article content or my position that anything we write needs to be reliably sourced, as an excuse for your actions. I have been consistent throughout in my view that there are four independent NHS services in the UK, and that each has its own agenda and priorities, and that each are setting up temporary facilities for the Covid-19 emergency. Rather than creating a new article when you fail to get agreement for your views, perhaps it would be better if you just accepted consensus and worked on the article(s). -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: Wow. Yes, I was remiss in omitting the attribution tag: for which apologies. However, now we come to the crux. There is no consensus whatsoever for creating four separate articles, one for each individual region. As far as I can tell, this idea comes solely from you. This initiative is a country-wide national effort across the United Kingdom, driven by central government. Yes, it's being implemented through the NHS regions and devolved subnational governments because these are the administrative structures the UK already has in place, but that does not make it four separate initiatives. So we have two things: a national initiative to build a network of field hospitals, which is certainly article-worthy, and individual hospitals, some of which are large enough to make them worthy of individual articles per WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: you misrepresent me - I've not asked for four separate articles. My view is to evolve this article, but based on reliable sources, and split as as when/if necessary - as with the London article (again based on consensus). Read my comments in the thread I started on it to see that. And my current view is still that there is no centrally coordinated UK-wide temporary hospital initiative though, as each of the four national health services in the UK are pursuing their own agendas and projects on this, with the "Nightingale Hospitals" apparently only being related to NHS England. That doesn't mean this article can't be expanded to cover the other country's initiatives though, but through consensus-building channels rather than by new article creation and trying to supplant the original article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: Let's talk about consensus then rather than whether correct process was followed by whom - it is clear to me from above that the consensus aligns more with the Anome's view than yours. It is self-evident to me that there is a UK-wide effort to set up field hospitals. I don't agree with your stipulation this has to be split along NHS-nation lines. Be careful about your language, your comment above looks like an insinuation of brigading, when in actuality it shows that the consensus is against you. |→ Spaully ^~talk~ 10:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaully: my concern here was about the confusion of cascading and multiplying articles, not the furtherance of my own opinion. The way to evolve content is through the talkpage, not by continually creating new articles to start again with. We can keep this article and evolve it with consensus, rather that merging it into it's own clone and evolving that. Doesn't that make sense? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto: Can I just point out that my position is that we should have (currently) just two articles, one on the national effort and one on the single (so far) independently notable hospital, NHS Nightingale Hospital London, and your position seems to me to be that we should either have four articles, one for each region, or that all efforts outside NHS England should be ignored? One thing I think we do agree with one another on: this article and the national one should be merged, and an appropriate title chosen. Since you assert that "NHS Nightingale" refers only to the NHS England hospitals, it obviously cannot be that: so why not use the title of the current national article? I don't care which way the merge and/or rename is done, only that the end result is rational. -- The Anome (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: see my comments on your interpretation of my views above at 11:00. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals, per Andy Mabbett. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals. There needs to be a single article about this, and that article must cover the whole United Kingdom. Whilst the new Scottish Hospital has been named something different, it is still clearly part of the same response. Just this morning this article from the BBC [27] clearly is highlighting the Nightingale hospitals are UK wide, this is not just an England only thing. If this article is kept and not merged, then this article must not just be about England, it must be about the whole United Kingdom. RWB2020 (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals#England. No need for a separate article on just the hospitals in England when there is already a common article for the UK, which can link to the individual pages (e.g. NHS Nightingale Hospital London, NHS Louisa Jordan Hospital) if notable. 2A02:C7D:118C:2600:6856:146C:AE68:9259 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It can't just be merged into the NHS Nightingale Hospital article (the one concerning the hospital at the ExCel), because there's going to be more than one, if things keep going as they are. We are talking what ifs and stuff so in advance, if the ExCel hospital were to be the only one, I'd say Merge into the ExCel hospital article. EVIL! Said Mermaid Man. (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per others. WP:TOOSOON to assume that there wil be others. Redirect to keep page history? >>BEANS X2^t 14:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd recommend keeping. As the NHS Nightingale Hospital are notable in their own right given their all gaining massive media coverage in the UK, with the first being opened today. Yorkshireboy2020 (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and close this discussion asap. Good content and significant history. The various move and merge proposals should be discussed, but this delete proposal has no merit whatsoever. Andrewa (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NORG. Gritmem (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NORG as this topic is getting more than sufficient media coverage. This is Paul (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly the situation has moved forward rapidly since this AfD was created. I don't think anyone is claiming that the information in the article is not notable (as the above few Keep !votes seem to be suggesting). And articles on individual on individual hospitals can be created when needed (as is already the case with NHS Nightingale Hospital London and NHS Louisa Jordan Hospital). The question is rather: is there justification for a separate article on the England-only effort (NHS Nightingale Hospitals), or should it be covered as part of the UK-wide article (NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals)? Hence the Merge !votes above. 2A02:C7D:118C:2600:C11:947:6851:21FA (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte Carmichael[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a child actress, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. Virtually all of her roles to date have been minor bit parts, with only one role (Christopher Robin) that might potentially be significant enough to count toward NACTOR #1 -- but even that criterion requires multiple significant roles, not just one, and actually passing it requires some evidence of reliable source coverage about her and her performances, not just technical verification that the role was had. But none of the footnotes here are cutting it at all: five citations are to IMDb, which is not a notability-supporting source; two are to unreliable blogs, which are not notability-supporting sources; and one is to a newspaper article which briefly namechecks her existence only in the caption to a promotional photograph, and not in any of the body text.
The other potential notability claim is that she was nominated for, but did not win, an award -- but every award that exists is not an automatic free pass over WP:ANYBIO: if you can source the nomination only to the award's own self-published website about itself, because media coverage about the award is non-existent, then by definition the award is not notable enough to make its nominees notable for getting nominated for it. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much more reliable sourcing than this. And furthermore, due to the potential for a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have an established consensus that we have to be especially vigilant about the notability of underage minors — which means no article at all about somebody under the age of 18 unless they have a very clear notability claim supported by very solid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one significant role does not meet the notability requirements for actresses. All the more so when the person is still a child.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject's main role in the very notable film, Christopher Robin (film), and her recurring role in Nightflyers (TV series) are enough to scrape through under WP:NACTOR, I believe. There are also many, many passing mentions in reliable sources, but I haven't found much in-depth coverage. Thus far, I have only found two sources which provide brief but favourable comments regarding the subject's acting: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/christopher-robin-2018 and https://www.austinchronicle.com/events/film/2018-08-02/disneys-christopher-robin/. I would feel more comfortable keeping this article if additional non-trivial coverage can be found. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources do anything more than mention her name. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content on the subject is very brief, Bearcat, but more than a mere mention: "... Carmichael, hewing out her own midcentury niche after small parts in Darkest Hour and On Chesil Beach..." and "... a very good Bronte Carmichael..." Dflaw4 (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 05:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dflaw4. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not classify the subject's appearances in Christopher Robin or Nightflyers as "main roles". Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete since subject fails all three criteria of WP:NACTOR. Testifying to the lack of general notability, almost all the sources, i.e. IMDB and the like, proffered by the text are unacceptable. The fact that the creator of the page is practically a kamikaze account doesn't help, either. -The Gnome (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No strong support for the current state of the article has emerged, nor has any particular new arguments to delete it. Neither has there been any objection to Doncram's suggestion to move and incorporate what sourceable information we have on this festival into a broader article on Inffinito, currently redlinked. If Doncram wishes to put that into action, it is absolutely permitted by this inconclusive discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 01:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Film Festival of London[edit]

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

Survived AfD in 2010 but this festival Brazilian Film Festival of London was not long-lived and does not seem to have acquired notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[:File:CidadedeDeus.jpg|right|thumb|City of God (2002 film)]] (apparently image is non-free, cannot be displayed here) [[:File:Turma da Mônica Laços Film Poster.png|right|thumb|Turma da Mônica: Laços (film), one of the 2019 Brazilian films, whose article has a redlink to 2019 Hollywood Brazilian Film Festival, probably better covered in a combo list-article of film festivals of Inffinito]] (image non-free) [[:File:LinhadePasse.JPEG|right|thumb|Linha de Passe]] (image non-free)

Keep, tentatively. The first AFD was in 2010, and there were sources then, and "notability is not temporary". And there have been sources since, which I am not compiling myself. But here is a link to a page about its 2013 festival, the 5th running. Seems like a major-ish, somewhat successful-ish effort to promote about Brazilian films, explicitly the result of a Brazilian campaign. Let's not get side-tracked about it being "promotional"; the meaning here is not that the language of the Wikipedia article is unduly promotional; there are obviously very Wikipedia-notable promotional events/festivals/ad campaigns/etc.; virtually any film festival can be regarded as being promotional for its movies, or for the locale hosting it, or whatever. I will acknowledge that the current article is short and, even if it is about a notable topic and could be expanded, it does not have to have a separate article necessarily; it could perhaps be merged into a list-article about film festivals in London, or one about Brazilian films, or an article about the Brazilian film industry, perhaps. But readers should be allowed to find their way to wherever it is covered in Wikipedia, so if it is merged a redirect should be left behind. And if someone does choose to develop the topic more with more sources later, they should be able to re-start with the edit history in place (and with the Talk page links to the previous and current AFDs). However, in absence of a specific merger target so far, I think "Keep" is best for now. --Doncram (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Well, there is a row for this at List of film festivals in Europe#Brazilian Film Festival of London. The topic could be merged to there, and the bluelink there delinked. The entry there currently is without sources (okay because it links to an article that has the sources) and could be revised to add sources and explain that it ran from 2009 to at least 2013, and so on. The topic of film festivals in general is a big/important topic; it is useful for Wikipedia to cover significant festivals whether they survive forever or not. Keeping my "Keep" vote for now as I think the article could be expanded. Sure tag it for expansion, if you like. --Doncram (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually, perhaps better would be to modify/move this article to be about Inffinito, the larger Brazilian film festival initiative itself. On the larger level it is even more obviously notable, and it is even a little bit weird to have a Wikipedia article about just one of its festivals, and with the London one not being the most significant one. There is this detail about the Miami version of festival back in 2011. The current http://inffinito.com website is mentioning "14th Brazilian Film Festival of New York / Junho 23-27" and "24th Brazilian Film Festival of Miami / Setembro 11-19". This would best be characterized as a "Keep" outcome of AFD, I suppose, but noting there is a natural renaming and expansion of the article to be done; AFDs are often closed with conditions stated about what needs to be done in case of a Keep or other decision. --Doncram (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Inffinito is a major operation, in its 25th year of operation, doing more than just film festivals, too. See English language "about" page, this page about Inffinito's own TV productions which include, at least, films about the film festivals themselves, this page about the Circuito Inffinito de Festivais which mentions having had "80 edições do Brazilian Film Festival ao redor do mundo" so far. It certainly is valid to state that "Inffinito is today one of the most important cultural producers in Brazil and the largest showcase of brazilian cinema abroad.", whether or not u want to buy into its exhortation to "surpass your limits, believe in expansion and reach what is considered impossible", etc. :) --Doncram (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok but isn’t that just a completely different article? Mccapra (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, at least not in my view about how AFD should operate. BTW, I think you and I have edited on some of the same AFDs before, i happen to notice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hotel Cirta just now. When I browse in AFDs, considering whether to participate, I tend to look for cases--usually places, sometimes organizations--where a topic seems save-able. And wp:ATD(?) alternatives to deletion are important, we should look for them. And I think it is good to look at somewhat broader topics of "things like this one", towards solving a bigger problem than just one narrow topic. Here, there is a topic or two around this which are needed; you seem to agree Inffinito (currently a redlink), at least, is notable. And the narrow and broader situation can be addressed by renaming and expanding, and that saves the original edit history. On a technical point, yes, the Inffinito article could be created separately, then merge/redirect the Brazilian Film Festival of London to a section within it, but I prefer to move it and expand. Either way the edit history is retained, and a later editor could expand the redirect. I happen to prefer moving the edit history to allow full crediting of original authors in creating something which survived and was expanded, and makes the AFD link from the Talk page more accessible in the future, and otherwise informs the continuing situation better. The point of AFD should be about improving Wikipedia's continuing coverage in a broad area, not about running up deletion tallies or having success in destroying others' work (not saying or meaning those are your goals, at all, but those goals seem to be in play often).

Anyhow, if you more or less agree, could you withdraw and close your AFD nomination (which u can do because there are no other "Delete" votes), and I would be happy to do the move and some expansion (including making sections for the London, Miami, New York festivals)? Or, while I don't think others should have to weigh in, I'm also happy to let this run its course, do later. --Doncram (talk)

Keep and move and rewrite to the subject of Inffinito which is more notable than this festival but it can be included there, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ready to be closed. I prefer "Keep" as official outcome, but don't care if it is closed "Merge" or "Keep" with stipulation that it be merged or "no consensus" or "other" or whatever. No matter how the close is termed, however, this article will be moved by me to "Inffinito" and expanded, with the redirect pointing to an anchor/section about this festival, there. If, bizarrely, this article were to be deleted, then I would arrange for it to be restored before moving. I don't think further review is necessary, unless people want to quibble about the term to use in the close itself, with no effect on what actually happens with the article. --Doncram (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Faulty nomination (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Chan Sze Ming[edit]

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

Very few notable sources are available about this individual. James Richards 06:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 陳彥婷 (2018-04-05). "【富N代】白手興家　31歲坐擁近億升學王國：初時窮到冇錢畀家用" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
2. Au, Sabrina (2020-01-15). 王翠麗 (ed.). "People：主持陳思銘英式紳士代言人". Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
3. "Po長文暗串馬國明烚熟狗頭輸家陳思銘𡁻完唱不忿「被分手」". zh:新假期 (in Chinese). 2020-03-05. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
4. 嵐山 (2019-12-19). "【白手興家】32歲陳思銘坐擁近億升學王國斬斷與詩詠情侶關係：好好朋友". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
5. 嵐山 (2019-12-20). "【娛樂人物】單身三年想拍拖陳思銘拒認愛唐詩詠「女友一定唔係」". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Samuel Chan Sze Ming to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Vista, Colorado[edit]

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

Perhaps there was a post office here, but as far back as I can go (which is admittedly not that terribly far) the point named is a farmstead, as it still is today. Otherwise it's just farm after farm in a net of section roads. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of anything more than a farm here. –dlthewave ☎ 14:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article is also eligible for G5 speedy deletion (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji). MER-C 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijita Kulshrestha[edit]

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

An Indian astrologer and gem expert. Doesn't fit WP:NBIO. Some publications like this The Hindy article exist, but they look like press-releases. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has enough news resources which are not press releases. Please check all the news references carefully:

https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/a-gem-of-a-woman/article5538461.ece

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/465360/gem-woman.html

http://www.businessworld.in/article/Importance-Of-Gemstones/25-06-2017-120531/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Winds-of-change-against-employment-exchange/articleshow/762375491.cms

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/author/abhijita-kulshrestha/

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/viral-and-trending/190516/stones-power-healing-gemstones.html

https://thriveglobal.in/stories/chasing-the-musk-deer-called-happiness/

https://omtimes.com/tag/abhijita-kulshrestha/

https://www.gemstone.org/education/more-resources/30-education/fun-articles/197-importance-of-gemstones

http://www.millenniumpost.in/book-reviews/a-taste-of-poetic-freshness-17928

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2019/sunday-edition/for-a-taste-of-freshness.html

https://www.gemstoneuniverse.com/abhijita-wins-woman-indias-woman-icon-of-the-year-award.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endureforce (talk • contribs) 06:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A WP:INTERVIEW and some mentions in passing, leaning delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hi User:Piotrus, Thanks for your comment. If you think the article have some passing mentions then why not vote for Keep?Endureforce (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because GNG requires in-depth coverage. Passing mentions are not sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing that comes to the level of passing the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have mentioned resources in my above comment. You must check all the resources which are on good news websites.Endureforce (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBIO. KartikeyaS (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added many reliable and independent resources which are enough to passes general notability criteria. resources mentioned in my above comment. Endureforce (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endureforce, who created this article, is a Wikibaji sockpuppet. MER-C 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main 2 sources are a couple of interviews, very much in the press release style, and the other "sources" are mostly her own work. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources mentioned above are interviews, press releases, passing mentions and her own work, none of which contribute to notability. Therefore, this person does not meet GNG. I would advise Endureforce to follow WP:THREE when citing sources in any future discussions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mahatma Gandhi Central University#Activism and controversy. Clear consensus that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. While the numerical count is for delete, the suggestion to redirect/merge is compelling, and in accordance with WP:ATD. So, I'm going to redirect it. People can merge material from the history as they see fit, but it sounds like that will require care to make sure what's merged is carefully sourced and maintains a WP:NPOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi Central University protests[edit]

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

This was written entirely by advocates connected by the protests. All of them have been sock blocked, but the information is still there. Are there any neutral editors who can determine if this warrants its own page, or can be redirected to the university's article as a section? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Mishra (Feb 2020) and efforts to create Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest (Jan 2020). This could be G10 (attack page) or G11 (promotional/advocacy) but previous reverts by other editors kept the content around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mahatma Gandhi Central University#Activism and controversy. I would have supported a Merge if someone neutral was willing to do that. --Muhandes (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article leaves a lot to be desired, but it's not bad enough for TNT imo. Suggest merge/redirect to Mahatma Gandhi Central University#Activism and controversy. b uidhe 04:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Animal Defense[edit]

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

~~A worthy group, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: Boleyn, per this article it was "one of the most influential animal-rights groups in Colorado from 1994 to the mid-2000s." There are only a few articles about it online, but that appears to be because it was winding down as the internet age was winding up. On newspapers.com, by contrast, there are hundreds of articles about it (example), spanning 37 states and two countries. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable organization with RS WP:NEXIST. Denver Post, La Times, Environmental Magazine Wall Street Journal. I hope someone will add references to the article, but WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST and sources mentioned above. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per the convincing comments above. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like we have a consensus here that there are no sources with which to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elsmere, Colorado[edit]

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

Actually the former junction between the UP and the Rock Island outside Colorado Springs; the tracks were taken up in stages and now the spot is unrecognizable, having been overrun by the expanding city. There was never anything here but a few railroad buildings. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How does the deletion nominator determine "There was never anything here but a few railroad buildings". This seems to be another speculative Colorado populated places AFD. See also:

I happen to think it is far more plausible that off-line sources exist, or maybe online ones like those found with some digging on similar AFDs. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am not the first editor to suggest creation of WP:OTHERSOURCESEXIST, but in any case the assumption that there are sources nobody has seen justifies keeping nearly everything. In fact, we as a rule know what the sources of GNIS entries are, because they cite them. The problem is that they misinterpret those sources often enough to where I and plenty of other people think that GNOIS is not good enough as the sole source for an article. And really, there's no problem with someone coming along and using some other source and writing a new article, referring to GNIS only for the location (which they are as rule solid on). But between the mistakes and the misleading "populated place" terminology (it doesn't mean "a place where there is or was population") and the indiscriminate creation of articles, we have too many articles that appear to be about towns and villages which are about things we (at least in the USA) have considered non-notable unless someone can actually produce a source which demonstrates that notability. GNIS is not such a source. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any coverage of a community here, only a few railroad-related mentions on newspaper.com. This appears to be a railroad landmark mislabeled as a populated place by GNIS; if someone thinks that it was a "populated place", the onus is on them to provide sources supporting that claim. –dlthewave ☎ 04:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing sufficient coverage to establish notability or to build even a tenuous stub. A train wreck happened here in 1903, but if the wreck isn't notable, then it doesn't confer notability to the place, either. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those arguing to keep have primarily made the accurate point that this is far from the only list of postal codes in a country, and that it might be better to discuss them as a group. That's a valid viewpoint, and it may well be worth having that discussion via an RfC.

However, basically no attempts have even been made to counter those advocating "delete", who identify clear problems this article has: it's likely out of date, and while technically it's likely to be verifiable once updated, it's very difficult to source to anything other than primary sources. These add up to a serious concern regarding WP:NOTDIR. It is hard to argue anything other than this being an aggregation of primary-source material at best, falling foul of several aspects of "What Wikipedia is not."

This closure should not be taken as a firm precedent to start aggressively deleting other members of Category:Lists of postal codes, but it very much may reflect some significant policy problems with those lists, and further discussion to solve this one way or another is very much encouraged. ~ mazca ^talk 00:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Portugal[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for data as per WP:RAWDATA - not encyclopaedic content Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, if this article is unencyclopedic, then so is most of Category:Lists of postal codes. Pburka (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the problem is that this list is too large to be upmerged into the main article Postal codes in Portugal so must exist in its own right. Upmerging would be a silly decision. If this is to be deleted then so must all of the other entries in Category:Lists of postal codes as mentioned by Pburka, then please nominate them all and not single out just one from a series that have been worked on for more than 15 years. ww2censor (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed there's no reason Portugal should be singled out. But I'd recommend against a mass nomination with no prior discussion outside this forum. Any time we're dealing with a lot of content that has been around a long time and isn't clearly invalid, it really should be discussed more openly (and open-ended) than in a binary "keep/delete" process with a seven-day time limit. Especially keeping in mind WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - , postdlf, ww2censor, Pburka: I have no reason to single out this article, other than the fact that it’s tagged as part of a backlog I’m working on. As you will know, the fact that something has existed for years, or that lots of similar articles also exist, are not appropriate arguments for AfD. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good thing no one made those arguments. Incidentally, WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:VAGUEWAVEs are not considered valid arguments either. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as expressed by other editors, this page is one of many regarding postal codes, and is too large to be merged into the main article. If it is to be deleted, it should be as part of a consensus as to whether such articles in general meet the criteria for notability. --RaviC (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Agreeing with other keep supporters. In fact this is not an AfD candidate for me. There is a consent needed to conclude whether this is WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC or not. - The9Man | (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC) After going through various policies I tend to agree with WP:NOTDIR. Also in such case there are many other articles need to be removed from the mainsapace. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic content that fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Keep voters haven't addressed this core objection. OTHERSTUFF should also be deleted, but that doesn't have a bearing on the current discussion. b uidhe 21:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTWHITE. We don't need a comprehensive list of every single postcode in the country that can already be easily accessed by a single link. All we need is a topic on postal codes with a few examples, of which can already be found under Postal codes in Portugal. Ajf773 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a classic example of WP:NOTDIR. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted, this is one example of a bigger thing, and it would be better to have an RFC considering the bigger thing, involving editors who may improve matters rather than simply delete it all. On one level, the content is obviously valid for the main article about postal codes in Portugal, and it is a valid editorial decision to split it out for length/editorial reasons. Also, there is no way this should be outright deleted, because redirecting to (or merging back into) the main article is an obviously valid wp:ATD alternative to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a prototypical example WP:NOTDIR. It's unsourced, and almost certain that any possible sources would be WP:PRIMARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The WP:NOTDIR concerns don't seem to have been addressed by keep voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from WP:NOTDIR and the like, this list has no sources, is potentially out-of-date, and at over 4000 entries (many for several places that share a postal code) is wholly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It may set a precedent for the rest of Category:Lists of postal codes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a good example of WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toyanza Subdivision, California[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision, fails WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subdivisions/neighborhoods/census tracts must pass WP:GEOLAND#2 this does not. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kung-Flu[edit]

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

Promotion of racism, xenophobia and stereotype PenulisHantu (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. This term has been around for what, like a week? Leave this junk for Urban Dictionary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seconded the deletion. this is Wikipedia, not Urban Dictionary. Pahiy (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Garbage, has april fools come early? completely useless and borderline racist. Thirded deletion Homeofthething (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Speedy Delete and salt into oblivion I don't usually like doing this in a nom vote!, but to @L293D: (who approved the AfC) and @Utopes: (reviewed); this racist garbage should have never been approved to be created or reviewed as A-OK, or left unprotected. 67.70.32.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s contrib history itself could do with a nice fine-tooth combing (SARS mask stands out right away, for instance).Nate • (chatter) 05:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a relatively mainstream term among right-wing pundits. Indeed white house staffers are known to use this term to describe COVID-19. You can call it racist, but that is not an argument. Would you also call for the deletion of the article "nigger", by that logic? Since, this is a non-standard terminology, it seems natural that we should re-direct this to the actual article. It's not an endorsement of the term, but merely a recognition of its existence. CompactSpacez (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing main stream about this term, it's a racist fringe term and has no place on Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - guys, you're getting it wrong. This page does not "disparage or threaten its subject", so it isn't an attack page. Since when did we start deleting relevant search terms because they might be "racist" or "xenophobic" or whatever? Come on, we have an entire article on nigger, negro, chink, and we have extremely graphically detailed articles on sexual terms. To quote WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." So far the Delete !votes have said that this page should be deleted because it is: racist, xenophobic, stereotypical, junk, useless, borderline racist, racist garbage, and a racist fringe term. If you're going to vote delete, explain why you think this term hasn't received enough coverage to stay here on WP. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese virus, just four days ago, was closed as keep because, well, it is a widely used term that has received enough significant coverage. Personally, I'm not sure whether "Kung-Flu" has received enough significant, reliable, coverage to deserve a place in our encyclopedia, but one thing's for sure, this page shouldn't be deleted on grounds or racism before nigger, negro, and chink go as well. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CompactSpacez, User:L293D, I really, really wish that y'all would get as much of a kick out of dropping disgusting racist terms for white people as you do for non-white people. Why is it that the n-word needs to be used as an example, invariably, in such conversations? Don't y'all think that this is just some white privilege surfacing? Why does it often seem as if such conversations are really just a good excuse to use some racist term? Please choose your examples more wisely, and please consider whether any examples need to be used at all. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, I am actually sorry if the slurs I used as examples offended you; I tried not linking them, but I could have done a better job of presenting my argument in a less offensive manner. Second, I'm not sure the n-word is used "invariably" is these conversations, but that's from your experience. Third, I wish you could, like, not say that the reason I'm !voting is to drop some racial slurs, just for my personal entertainment. Voting in order to use a racist term is trolling, and that accusation is kinda serious. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that's the impression I got at first. Lastly, I agree with most of what you've written below, I just wish people didn't jump to the conclusion that me not voting delete means that I'm a Trump supporter. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should be running around dropping racial epithets to make a point like some 4chan edgelord. That is not what WP:NOTCENSORED means. Use some common sense, if you've got any. Praxidicae (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am trying hard to assume you aren't meaning what you said, but now you two have said that I'm a dude who comments solely to use racist terms, a dude who "runs around dropping racial epithets", a 4chan edgelord, and a guy who has no common sense, or very little. If we're going to have a constructive argument, I suggest you word your comments slightly more on the polite side. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst dab-page I've ever seen: the term occurs in none of the linked articles (L293D, I know most of the content isn't yours). I don't disagree with L293's creation of it, but it needs to occur somewhere in order to have some validity--and the coverage ([28], [29], [30], [31]) is clear: its only legitimate target here on Wikpedia is something pertaining to Trump and his use of the racist term "China virus" (and, apparently, a racist meme by his son about this particular term). In other words, it has to point not to the virus (reliable sources don't use it to point to the virus or the disease) but to Trump--at least one of them. I'm sure in our million articles on Trump there's one about "Trump and COVID-19" and that is where this should point, with an explanation in the text of the racist term (maybe in the context of his comment a day or so after the "China virus" in which he expressed support for our fellow Asian-Americans who were being smeared without acknowledging that he was the one who had smeared them) and a source or two. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. This is just a neologism. Hog Farm (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for this to exist as an article or as the unsourced pseudo-disambig page it is at the moment. It could be mentioned somewhere else, but there's no case for a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The game clearly exists somewhere on the borderline of relevant notability guidelines. Participants have discussed what sources are available in some depth, and seem to have reached good-faith disagreement over exactly where the line is drawn. No consensus has been reached over a very long discussion period. ~ mazca ^talk 00:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Everlasting (role-playing game)[edit]

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

This paper RPG does not seem to meet WP:NBOOKS/GNG. I am not seeing any reviews of the system "The Everlasting" as a whole. It consists of 4 books, as far as I tell none have been reviewed in reliable sources, all I see are blogs, forum posts, and personal websites. The 4th book is the one that seems to have the most reviews, but none I found strike me as reliable (i.e. published in a gaming magazine or a website with some reputation for fact checking or editorial process). None of the books nor the game system as far as I can tell seemed to have won any awards or such. In the end, I am afraid that it is not a notable product (game system). Previous prod by User:Boleyn (ping), prod removed by User:Newimpartial who mentioned reviews - please list the ones you think are reliable (not WP:SPS etc.). Comments appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the set of RS and the set of SPS overlap, per WP:SPS, in the instance of "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". For example, the author of geeknative has published on gaming in RS publications (The Independent) and fits the criteria for established expertise. His reviews are therefore RS. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he is reliable, and I am not sure - it would be one thing if his review would be published in TI, but when it is on his own page, it is self-published, just like we differentiate between what a scholar writes in a peer-reviewed outlet, and what he writes on his blog. His webpage is nice, but it is de facto a Patreon-supported blog, just web 3.0-style. Second, as far as I remember, he didn't review the system, just one or two books. PS. Also, being published in a newspaper does not make one an expert. Hobbists and amateurs get published in newspapers too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he was published professionally in the newspaper - not as OP-ed, not as "citizen journalism". So yes, it counts. Also note that the carve-out in WP:SPS applies specifically to the self-pulished work of recognized experts within their area of expertise - if the review were not self-published, we would not be having this conversation. As far as the argument that book reviews don't count to the Notability of the game, that is a new one. The fact is that they document the notability of the topic, and then it is a matter of discussion whether the topic is best addressed through articles on individual books, on the game as a whole, or some other unit of analysis. But there is never a valid argument for deletion based on the unit of analysis being "wrong" - at most, that is a merger or redirection argument. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not believe that interpretation of WP:SPS is correct, as otherwise, everyone who has ever written an article for a reliable newspaper, for example, would automatically be considered an "established expert" on whatever topic that article happened to be about, which is not the case. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I interpret the phrase "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" as more along the lines of say, a virologist whose work with HIV has been published in scientific journals might be considered an established expert on HIV as far as a self-published source on the subject goes. Not that someone who wrote some articles on a particular subject is automatically considered an expert on that subject and whose personal website is now considered a reliable source. That very guideline also very clearly states to exercise caution when using such sources. All of this, however, is really a moot point because even if Andrew Girdwood's personal site could somehow be argued to be a reliable source (which, again, it really isn't), there is really not much else besides that on the game that would allow this article to pass the WP:GNG. A small handful of reviews of some of the individual books on highly questionable websites does not establish notability for the game as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting interpretation, but isn't really supported by WP:GNG. Insofar as the reviews are RS SPS, they absolutely do establish notability for the game which consists of these books.

As far as Girdwood is concerned, his reputation as an expert in RPGs exists independently of the The Independent (through convention participation etc.) but is documented by that paper for WP:SPS purposes. If he were a journalist who happened to do a piece on gaming, I would not be making this argument, but that is far from being the case.

AFAICT, the whole point of that carve-out is so that self-published analysis by Girdwood or Ken Hite is not thrown out with the bathwater of SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on reviews in geeknative and The Unspeakable Oath, NBOOK and the GNG are met. WP:N is established. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my arguments above, I think we have to agree to disagree. As I said, those reviews are not about the Everlasting RPG as a single entity, but about specific books from the series. Further, I don't consider those websites reliable, they seem SPS. Such reviews can push a borderline topic over, for example if we had a single review in a good reliable source like a gaming magazine or such, then we could use a bunch of less reliable reviews and say 'ok-ish'. But we are missing a single good source, and just have a tiny number of very low key and pretty much self-published reviews about not the main system but its sub-products. I am afraid the sources located so far, all of which I have reviewed, do not convince me to change my recommendation to "Delete due to fail of NBOOK/GNG". But thank you for your input!--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Unspeakable Oath is a professional publication with highly esteemed writers (who are generally notable in their own right). For what reason, besides your priors, do you not consider it "a good source"?

As far as "the books/series" distinction you are making, it doesn't make a difference. Your argument is like saying that if TV writers review each season of Lost, but not Lost as a whole, then we shouldn't have an article about Lost (TV series). In fact, there is a good deal more interdependence between publications in an RPG line than among seasons of a show. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the review of The Everlasting at The Unspeakable Oath? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you a link, but two reviews are on p. 91 of Issue 16/17. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, it is a website [32], why can't you give me a link? Even if it's some offline issue, surely there is a table of content online, or something else to help verify the review even exists? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK and the reviews cited by Newimpartial. I agree that it's obvious that reviews of one book in a series supports the notability of the series as a whole. I also see a review at RPG.net. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing at NBOOK suggests that a review of one book in a series supports notability of the series (please see WP:NOTINHERITED). And as I noted, RPGbooks is not reliable ("edit this review", wiki or forum review). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - An RPG game is not akin to a "book series" - it is an intellectual property that may be instantiated in multiple books and/or boxed sets and/or serial publications. Notability pertains to the game, but the reviews are typically of the individual publications making up the game. This, by the way, is akin to the treatment of many RPG publications at AfD - merger into game articles. Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Errr, it is quite common for RPG system with many books to get a review not just of individual books but of the greater whole. For example, [33]/[34] (Eclipse Phase). Same for other systems I checked. The issue is this RPG is so niche it has barely any reviews, and IMHO what is out there is not enough to make the system notable. Maybe the last book could be notable, I think I saw 3-4 reviews for it, but the issue remains that most of them did not appear very reliable anyway. Not every RPG is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like anything else, an RPG is notable if there are reliable, independent sources available to write about it. Piotrus, you yourself admit that there are reliable source reviews that meet NBOOK and the GNG with respect to the last installment of The Everlasting. That means there is no valid delete argument: the question, per PRESERVE and BEFORE C.4 is at what level of aggregation the topic should be addressed, not whether WP should address the content in question. My own argument is that it makes much more sense to have an article for a game, sourced to reviews of its component books, than it does to have an article on the best-referenced book and then to refer mentions of the game in general to, e.g., the final book's article through redirects. The latter inelegant solution is, however, the only policy-compliant course apart from having an article for the game as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I said that with regards to that book the sources are better, but at best borderline. As I said earlier, most seem to be blogs and like. So maybe one book is notable, the rest are unlikely to be so, and the entire system IMHO fails as well. Sorry, but unless you can find some good reviews (and so far you linked ZERO), I am afraid there is little here that can change my view. Do ping me if you link good sources and analyze them, and I'll be happy to reply to such an analysis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Piotrus, I gave perfectly good bibliographic citations (issue and page number) for two RS reviews. Please don't pretend that links are required, because they ain't. Let's try to stay within the bounds of policy at this challenging time. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Links are not required, but I don't have any reason to believe that the sources you mention that I cannot verify I reliable or in-depth. Based on what I can find out about those publications online they don't seem like coverage related to them would be either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Unspeakable Oath is a source independent of this article's subject and professionally published from 1993 on (the reviews in question date from 2001). It is therefore indisputably a reliable source for purposes of NBOOK and the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a verifiable proof that it published a review of this system? How do you know about this fact? Do you own a copy of the physical magazine in question? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I "own" is an old .pdf of the issue in question. The reviews of the two books come to almost 2000 words on pp.91-2; the table of contents for the issue may be found here. Full disclosure: I don't actually like The Everlasting - I found it cheesy at the time and don't find that it has aged very well either. But the GNG does not include a carve-out to exclude publications on IDONTLIKEIT grounds, even based on my own elevated taste. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Given this I accept those two as reliable reviews for the two books in question. I am still not convinced that's enough to make either of them notable (NBOOK/GNG require multiple good sources, not one per book) and I stand by my prior argument that for an RPG system to be notable it should have reviews of its own as a single entity, through I think one could also argue that a system whose most books are clearly notable as they have gotten multiple reviews each is probably notable too. For TE I am not seeing either, I am afraid. Let's see what others think, for now I don't think either of us will convince the other one about those issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient WP:RS are within, or outside, article to demonstrate the WP:SIGCOV needed to pass the WP:GNG. The NBOOK argument is an unconvincing interpretation of policy. Chetsford (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What policy-based argument do you have against the application of NBOOK in this case? Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None. NBOOK should be applied. The interpretation of NBOOK offered (i.e. that "geeknative.com" is in the spirit of NBOOK for cresting its review criteria, etc.), by which this article would pass, is an unconvincing one. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC); edited 17:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it sounds like we have consensus (though not complete consensus) that we have two reliable reviews for rule books that make up this game. I would tend to believe, given the dates and what I know of this system (which is quite limited) that there were more reviews at the time, though finding them would be pretty hard. Further, I'm fine with "upmerging" the two topics into a single topic (which actually makes a lot of sense for a game system like this). As such I think the argument for keeping the article is fairly weak (sources are probably fine; upmerging to get two reliable sources is questionable but frankly I'd only want one article for the two books). Hobit (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley, Colorado[edit]

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

Another isolated siding, this time on an now-abandoned Rock Island line. The location is now in the middle of a farmer's field, and there's no indication that I can see that there was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rail siding, even GNIS describes it as a spur. –dlthewave ☎ 15:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MatlinPatterson. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Patterson (investor)[edit]

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

Not seeing what makes him pass WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. BEFORE does not show any in-depth coverage, a few mentions in passing (warning: there are other notable individuals with the same name, so googlehit is overinflated!). I am not seeing a good merge target since the only relevant article is MatlinPatterson and we don't generally include biographies of company's personnel in an article about a company. While SOFTDELETE/PRESERVE is often a good idea, this is a very implausible search term given the existence of other notable individuals of that name, see Mark Patterson (disambig). At best, post-deletion, his entry there can be updated to delink his name and link the company to reduce issues related to WP:R#ASTONISH (as in, a reader clicks on his name and lands at the company page). But it is very doubtful anyone would type in a specific search for MP (investor). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MatlinPatterson, another WP:POINTy AfD after a shot down PROD. The Banner talk 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to address the issues with merge/redirect I raise in the op. Did you even read this nom before copypasting your vote? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I did read your nomination and dismiss your arguments as faulty. The Banner talk 04:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - So please explain how they are faulty. Just saying they are does not make them so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His racing career might be notable [35],[36], [37], I'm wondering if that has been taken into account...GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: The key problem is that the racer is probably a different person. See Mark Patterson disambig. Note that our subject is South Africa-born, but [38] states the racer was born in the USA. Might merit adding him to the disambig and even stubbing if he passes WP:SPORTBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I got confused then, I have to examine it further then..let me look into it before I present my opinion.GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this page is incorrect. Pro Racing driver Patterson, he is even racing 2020 season for ALGARVE PRO RACING team..[39] I would like to see this page adjusted to match the real driver Patterson which in my opinion is notable. Possible?GizzyCatBella🍁 08:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should just create a new article for the driver, as this one is about a different person (investor). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can create one, maybe tomorrow or Monday.GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Move - to "Mark Patterson (Pro Racing driver)" if that is an option, please view the remarks above.GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a new article for the driver -> "Mark Patterson (Pro Racing driver)"GizzyCatBella🍁 09:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MatlinPatterson. There is not enough sourcing to establish a GNG pass, and there is no information worth merging that is not already present at the target article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Trees Village, California[edit]

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

All original research added by COI User:BTVPOA. Non-notable subdivision in Dorrington, California. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subdivision/homeowner's association. Hog Farm (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subdivision fails GNG and lacks independent coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 14:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peaches Boutique[edit]

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

Article went through AfC, by an editor who only worked on this article, and has a promotional tone (number of dresses the store has, a quote from the store manager, etc.) WP:CORP has guidelines on what makes a company notable, and I don't see that being met here. The Chicago Tribute article is in a significant publication, about prom dress shopping at this store, but it's more about prom dress shopping than the store itself. The Daily Journal mention is trivial (one line and a quote from the store manager.) There's a semi-recent WGN story about Peaches that GNews turns up, but it's very short and not significant.

The fluff can go but this store doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for businesses. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing proving that the store is notable enough on its own; I suggest getting an admin to delete it without further delay. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as suggested . DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify (move to Draft:List of modernized adaptations of old works). There is a clear consensus that the current state of the article is not up to encyclopedic standards. However, there are two major camps in this discussion. The deletion position is that the article is far too broad in scope, and that the title is overly subjective. The keep and draftify arguments maintain that the article can be reworked given a tightening up of inclusion criteria, and since the AFD was initiated there has been a flurry of recent activity towards that end. The arguments on both sides have merit and were made in good faith. The number count on either side is about equal. Noting that deletion is generally held as the less preferable option if an avenue exists for further editing according to deletion policy, I am closing this as a move to the Draft namespace. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of modernized adaptations of old works[edit]

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

Fails WP:LIST and WP:FICTION, this is possibly also heavily unsourced on what modnerinzed adapations are based on old works. Pahiy (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is an "old work"? The word "old" means different things to different people. Furthermore, this list would be absurdly long if we include all modern adaptations of "older" works. To put it succinctly, this is an ill-defined list that should not exist. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Rename List of modernized adaptations of older works or you can use the word "previous" if you prefer, or even "original". The articles linked to tell what classic work it was based on. Dream Focus 05:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Clarifying my statement: You don't need a reference for an item on a list if the linked to article has a reference for the information mentioned. Just a waste of time since they can click it and see it over there. Dream Focus 18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is an indiscriminate collection of everything from works ostensibly based on Roman myths, to works loosely connected with Shakespeare, to remakes of 80’s movies, to spinoffs featuring The Muppets. These things have practically nothing to do with each other, the list is ever-growing and is likely impossible to maintain, and establishing an inclusion criteria for it is impossible because the concept is so vague. Also, the fact that almost nothing in this list is sourced means tons of it is likely original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear scope that isn't potentially gigantic. Even the "old works" themselves share little in common, aside from most being public domain. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no clear definition of "old". Is this every work that is when remade set in a more recent time than when it is first made. Also no evidence that this is clearly a unified concept. How some of them qualify at all is also debatable, for example Disney did not try to set Aladdin in a modern setting, so that is highly questionable. The list is also basically unsourced, making us wonder how much origianl research it has. It has "Monsters versus aliens" without even trying to claim what it is based on. On the other hand it does not have the Miracle on 34th street remake, which was moved forward 40 years, which might not be a lot, but is more than some of the listed remakes did. Or does that not qualify because it is too much just a straight remake?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a topic that clearly merits extended coverage here on the wikipedia. Some of those who are voicing "delete" opinions here have raised good points - every entry should be substantiated by an RS that explicitly says the modern work is based on a classic work, or reasonable equivalent. But we don't delete articles on solid notable topics, just because the current version of the article is weak. AFD is not supposed to be used as a goad for article improvement. Sorry, the valid concerns of those who voiced delete belong on the article's talk page, not here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator Pahiy, naysayers Susmuffin, Devonian_Wombat, LaundryPizza03, Johnpacklambert, please look at this version of the article. I took fifteen minutes and added references to half a dozen of the Jane Austen adaptations, and then trimmed every entry in the list that didn't have a reference substantiating that it was a modern adaptation. That version is not vulnerable to claims of original research.
I don't doubt that most of the entries in these lists could each have a substantiating reference, with a couple of minutes per entry's work.
Whoever started this article started from a very good idea, but they should have left the unreferenced entries in their rough notes, until they could add a reference. It is a newbie mistake, and, in my opinion, a highly forgiveable one.
You guys, on the other hand, should have known better, and known that we don't delete articles on notable topics merely because the current version of the article has problems. Please try harder to bear this in mind if you are going to continue to weigh in in AFD discussions, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a good idea. It is a mixing of so many different things that there is no coherent one point. Is it modernization in style or setting How "old" is old? We need things that are definable, and nothing here is definable. This is not a defined topic, it has no clear definition, no agreed on inclusion criteria and is a total and complete mess. Alsoo, I am tired of being attacked for looking at articles as they are. The fact that a list sprouted up without good sourcing should be held against it. If we want Wikipedia to be useful and reliable we need to stop letting junk like this just sit around indefinately because it allegedly can be improved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me? Are you really arguing that when an RS says a modern work is an adaptation of a classic work this is not sufficient to rely on in an article? Geo Swan (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WRT your tiredness over "being attacked for looking at articles as they are"... Well, don't WP:BEFORE and other policies and wikidocuments call on you to consider the notability of the underlying topic, not the current state of the article? I suggest asking you to comply with our policies, supporting wikidocuments, and longstanding conventions is not an "attack". Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Johnpacklambert made multiple excisions to the article, even though they had already called for its deletion. [40], [41], [42]
In theory our policies allow any contributor to edit any article, even when an AFD is active and they have already called for its deletion. However, since voicing a delete opinion is supposed to mean they think it is impossible to improve the article so it measures up to our inclusion standards, those who have voiced a delete almost never then go on and try to improve the article in question. One will, occasionally, see someone who has voiced a delete make an edit when they think that there a problem, like a terrible BLP violation, that can't wait for the AFD to be closed.
Editing an article, at AFD, after you have called for its deletion is almost always a terrible idea, as it erodes good faith. Those who want to see an article kept are encouraged to try to improve the article, by addressing the stated concerns of those who voiced delete opinions. We don't want disappointed newbies to think "If only those guys who stated delete hadn't been edit-warring with me, I could have addressed some of the concerns stated in the AFD, and the article would have been kept.
I added three more references and restored three entries JPL excised. JPL, quit doing that please. Geo Swan (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC) also [43][reply]
- If Aladdin fits in the scope of this article it is much broader than many people think it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnpacklambert, I asked you, above, whether we could not rely on RS stating a modern work was an adaptation of a classic work. Your comment above is not an answer to that question. Geo Swan (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have yet to see any evidence that there is agreed upon limits of what is and what is not an adeaptation. Plus my issue here is with the issue of what is "modernized". Not all adaptations of older works are inherently "modernized". Is Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman a "modernized" adaptation of The Adventures of Superman?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, are there RS that says it is an adaptation? As above, I think the list is essentially worthwhile, provided each entry has an RS that explicitly says the more recent work is an adaptation of the earlier work. This would leave out all entries which might have been adaptations, but no RS ever bothered to say so. Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename List of modernized adaptations of older works. The list serves its purpose per WP:LISTN criteria Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs clearer inclusion criteria but I think it can be reasonably well defined and sourced as a decent list both individually and as a group. I removed a number that are remakes of recent works or are only inspired by a previous work, not necessarily modernized adaptations of the same story; this needs a lot of clean up but should be a fair topic. Category:Modern adaptations of works by William Shakespeare is relevant. I have also removed the non-notable web series; having a WP article is a reasonable criterion to keep it discriminate in this instance. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the article is kept, it will need a serious and major overhaul. The criteria for inclusion at this point is just mainly original research and very dubious claims of adaptions. Several entries on the list claim "loosely based" or "very loosely based" or "influenced" — is that enough to be considered a modernized adaptation of an old work. Just to cite a few dubious claims – Mighty Morphin Power Rangers - many elements are based on The Wizard of Oz, really? So MMPR is a modernized adaptation of an old work. Rugrats - influenced by Look Who's Talking and Sugar and Spike, but yet when you click through to the article on Rugrats, it says it's based on "antics of Klasky and Csupó's (creators of show) infant children and also pulling inspiration from The Beatles, how is Rugrats then a modernized adaptation of an old work. A.I.: Artificial Intelligence - self-referential version of The Adventures of Pinocchio set in a post-apocalyptic North America, click through to that article and it says - loosely based on the 1969 short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long", and then an editor adds a reference that describes it as a "Pinocchio-esque quest", so that makes it a modernized adaptation of an old work, in spite of the article stating it being based on a short story. There are several entries on the list that are adaptions, but far too many that are original research, unsourced and dubious at best. At the minimum, each entry should be sourced that clearly states it is an adaption of an older work. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Ebert [44] said Paging through the movie's press kit, I came across this quote attributed to Amy Jo Johnson, who plays Kimberly, the Pink Power Ranger: " `Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie' is a mix between `Star Wars' and `The Wizard of Oz.' " I wonder if Amy Jo actually said "TM" when she was delivering that wonderfully fresh and spontaneous quote, which is so much more involved than anything she says in the movie. More to the point, I wonder if she has ever seen "Star Wars" or "The Wizard of Oz." So that one should be removed. Any thing mentioned that isn't in the linked to article should be removed. If you find a reference proving it, then put it in the main article. Dream Focus 20:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (edit: Draftify, see below.) Unclear title, ill-defined scope, original research, and a maintenance nightmare. The topic itself may be useful to have something about, but not in this form. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:50, 05 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenance concerns is not a valid reason for deletion. If you see anything you believe is original research, not backed up by referenced material in the main article, then remove it. Would you prefer a title such as List of entertainment media based on previous media? Dream Focus 02:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isaidnoway explained it well. If I were to delete original research, most of the list would be gone. That title is better, but that's a low bar to clear. Like I said, I believe this topic has merit, but I think it needs an expanded introduction and/or a section about why it's useful and relevant as a literary pursuit. I think this is a case for WP:BLOWITUP. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 04:05, 05 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of a single article that has ever been blown up and started over again, instead of just destroyed and abandoned? Better to just keep going through entries and purging those that don't belong there. I have tagged it for Rescue so hopefully more will come to help. These things do get coverage in reliable sources, they reviewing something they always mention what it was based on. Dream Focus 05:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between exploding it and merely giving it an exhaustive overhaul is semantic. I would happily choose to keep this once that work gets done (and I was unfamiliar with the Article Rescue Squadron until you mentioned it, and I commend their efforts as well as yours), but I don't believe this article is acceptable in its current form. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:57, 05 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with those below that draftifying is the best option here, and eventually splitting into multiple lists that each have an actual scope. I still believe that most of the content of this list is unsalvageable, but as a draft it will be useful as a starting point for selecting entries for those new lists. @Erik and Girth Summit: I would also be willing to help, though I'm not sure how much I can meaningfully contribute since I've never been great at finding sources. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 23:13, 09 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 03:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge into whichever lists might be more appropriate, if it's not there already).Draftify (changed !vote, explained below) This list in its current form, or in the version of it presented above by Geo Swan, does not seem sufficiently well-defined to be useful. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that describe things as 'a modern version of a classic', or 'a modern retelling of an old story', but I don't think those sources are using that language in a sufficiently well-defined way as to make it valid to list them for our purposes - they're describing, rather than defining, the subjects. In its current version, it's a hodgepodge of everything from Roald Dahl to Homer; even in Geo Swan's vastly reduced version, it was still going from Bernard Shaw to Sophocles. I could see the point in having better defined lists - List of films based on Victorian novels, List of adaptations of plays by Shakespeare, that sort of thing, and so any of these entries could be added to lists like that if they are missing from them, but a list of new versions of old stuff seems too poorly defined to satisfy LISTN to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on thoughts above - another way this content might be saved/recreated would be to have better definition in the type of new versions we're talking about. This list currently mixes up stuff like West Side Story, a direct retelling of Romeo and Juliet in a modern setting, with The Rocky Horror Picture Show, a farce that draws somewhat from themes in Frankenstein, but in no way follows the original story. It includes Jesus Christ Superstar, which is not even modernised (it just contains some anachronisms for effect), and Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead, which again is not modernised in any way, just retold from a different perspective; but then it also has Rugratz, because it is apparently merely influenced by Look Who's Talking - which is already in a modern setting, there's no modernisation going on there. The film Matilda is in there too - that's not modernised, the film was released only 8 years after the book was published, it was just set in America to appeal to a wider audience. It's not just the 'old stuff' that is poorly defined - it's the 'This is a list of' side of things as well - I can imagine several useful, well-defined lists being put together from the stuff that's in this one, but this doesn't know what it wants to be. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another odd entry is Aladdin. The biggest difference between Alaaddin and its source material is not that it has anachronisms, but that it is set in Arabia instead of in China as is the source story (although the source story of Aladdin set in China has lots of details many would argue fit better with Arabia than China, but it explicitly says it is set in China).John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, I think that the trouble is that everything in it could be seen as an odd inclusion, because it doesn't define what it's supposed to be a list of. Is it things that follow the story of X but in a modern setting? Or modern adaptations (loosely defined) of X? Or things that were influenced by/drew inspiration from X? At the moment it's all of the above, before we even get into defining what 'X' is... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the factor we have things like Miracle on 34th Street and Sabrina, which are both updated maybe 30 to 40 years when remade. Even Saturday's Warrior at least the 1988 film which is often seen as a work that went from being made and set in the early 1970s to being made in the early 21st-century but still set in the 1970s has at least its first film make with details that make it no earlier than 1978, when it was first made in 1971. Come to think of it, Superman is first set in the 1930s, yet he is brought forward to the 2010s in Man of Steel. I know that has nothing on the time change from Romeo and Juliet to West Side Story, but what is the amount of movement we need for it to count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Draftify as a notable list per WP:NOTESAL since "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This does not mean that the current version is sufficient. We do need better inclusion criteria, and that should be discussed on the talk page. Sometimes we deal with list topics for which it can be difficult to determine listings, like in the matter of genre classification. I suggest giving editors an opportunity to discuss criteria and to revise the article without the pressure of deletion. If the list does not appear sufficient to others despite established criteria and clean-up to reflect that criteria, it can be re-nominated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, genuinely sorry if I've missed something, but where have the things on this list been discussed as a group or set? GirthSummit _(blether) 22:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, no problem, I'm glad to answer. I was looking at coverage outside Wikipedia before I posted above. First, in the current list, references #1, #15, and #17 list suitable adaptations. I see similar such lists in various search engine tests (using different keywords) like [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] (#5), [51], [52], [53] (maybe). After some mulling, I think the list should include "classics" or "classic works" in the title because that seems to be the general source material. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Thanks for that. To be honest though, sources like those really underscore my concern that the scope of this list is too poorly defined. If we look at the first three:

Barnes and Noble starts out with a number of actual modernised adaptations of old stories - and then at the end it throws in Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Even the source itself accepts that it doesn't really belong - it's not modernised at all, it's a retelling from a different character's perspective.
Flavourwire talks about Wide Sargasso Sea, which is neither modernised nor and adaptation - it's an entirely original story, using characters from Jane Eyre; a prequel, in modern parlance. It includes Lavinia, a story which is set in the world of Virgil's Aenied - it's not modernised, it's just a retelling of the story from the perspective of Aeneas's wife. In includes His Dark Materials which, although the author admits he is heavily influenced by Milton, is in no way a 'modernised adaptation' of it.
Off the shelf is no better. We've got On Beauty, which our article admittedly describes as being 'loosely based on' Howards End, but then we also have The Hours, which 'draws inventively on the life and works of' Virginia Wolf, rather being an adaptation of her work, and it includes The Sixteenth of June, which it describes as 'a nod towards' Joyce's Ullyses. If we're going to allow things that have 'a nod' towards older stuff, it would be hard to exclude any work of modern literature from the list!

I come back to the question - what is it that we're listing here? I could get behind quite a few different ideas for lists of this type - an exhaustive list of works derived from the writings of Jane Austin might be interesting (and it would be quite lengthy in itself); a list of prequels and sequels of classic works (along the lines of Wide Sargasso Sea) would be well-enough defined, and interesting; a list of works that imagine a classic story from a different character's perspective would be great (Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead, Lavinia, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, or Atwood's The Penelopiad would all fit nicely into that). What we shouldn't have, which is what this article appears to be, is a list of 'New works of fiction that have some sort of connection to something older'. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your wariness. I am curious to know if "classic works" is the best foundation to have. Are we dealing with any non-classics here? As for describing the nature of these adaptations, I acknowledge that there is not a consistent and singular term for these. I agree that the lists you suggest are great. But if we have a list of works from a different character's perspective, why not a list of works in a different setting? Surely there are some works that are updated in terms of inclusivity that make identifying the work having "a different character's perspective" a somewhat tricky area too. I think this list topic is worth trying to salvage through some actual discussion first. The list has been around a long time (since 2004) and has apparently had over 200 editors edit it, so I think there is a sourceable approach to it. I agree that we need solid inclusion criteria to exclude sourcing that are merely stating nods and inspirations. Ponyo, for example, is one of those that I would drop. While The Little Mermaid had some influence on that, that's really all that it was. Where a film like Clueless is a sourceable lock. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I think that there are a lot of non-classics on the list - it's a subjective term naturally, but I don't personally consider Look Who's Talking to be quite in the same "classic works" territory as Pride and Prejudice.. But yes - I absolutely agree that a list of works where a classic story has been put into a modern setting would be totally valid. I'm voting delete because that isn't what this list is, and it doesn't look from the lead's description that that's what it's supposed to be. The lead starts by saying that it's a list of modernised adaptations (e.g. Bride and Prejudice, or West Side Story), and where the creator says that's what it is I think that would be an uncontroversially worthwhile thing; then, in the next sentence, it says the list also includes things where the author is trying to get around copyright by making enough changes. That seems to be a different thing to me - surely that should be a separate list?

Then, when you actually look at the contents of the list, we see that it conforms to neither of the two separate things that the lead sets out - as discussed above, we have a massive hodgepodge of works which are more or less related to something old, including even stuff like the film of Matilda, which is pretty much a straight-up film version of a book, released just a few years after the book was published - if that's includable, we might as well add every film that has ever been made of any novel.

One possible alternative to deletion that I could get behind might be to draftify, and then piece together several properly defined lists out of what we have here? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly the same thing about Matilda. I agree with you that the list is a hodgepodge. A list this old, with a lot of different hands on it -- there was no plan for this, essentially. I suppose I'm trying to see its potential because there seems to be a lot to work with. In my experience, a new tone has to be set. For example, List of film director and actor collaborations used to be this monstrosity, now it's more refined.

I'm fine with draftifying and have changed from keep to that. It would properly put the burden on editors who want to present this list topic in a better form. (Since sometimes some AFDs end with keeping articles but needing to improve them and never actually doing that, leading to a second round invoking WP:TNT.) I did this somewhat with List of film accents considered the worst, which led to an article with a redefined scope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik I've talked myself into changing my own !vote! I wouldn't want to see this list in its current form remain in article space, or for it to be reinstated with minor changes after draftification, but if the entries on it would help editors to put one or more better-defined lists then I have no problem with it being draftified rather than deleted. !Vote changed above accordingly. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It will be an interesting thing to tackle. Pinging Geo Swan -- would you consider draftifying as well? If we refine the scope and present it well and with sources, we can recreate a new version in the mainspace. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I'd be willing to be involved in putting one or more new versions together, and in discussing what the new versions should be - having put so much thought into this discussion, and never having done much work on list articles before, I think this would be quite interesting. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly DRAFTIFY. List article without properly defined inclusion criteria. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete. This is clearly original work. The definition itself of the subject is pure original-work, naturally without any supporting reference. It's an introduction to a text that's full of arbitrary, unsourced listings. Even the sources that are supposed to support inclusion are one critic's or writer's opinion, i.e. nothing fundamentally, solidly conclusive: What to one person looks like a "source" to another might look like homage or partial inspiration. This list actually operates in the opposite direction Wikipedia lists are meant to go: It confuses and misinforms rather than educate. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of your comment violates WP:NPOV. Adaptations of works are scalable in terms of fidelity. To say that Clueless is not a "fundamentally, solidly conclusive" adaptation of Emma is patently false because reliable sources overwhelmingly say the opposite of what you say. It is reductionist to say that Wikipedia only deals with cold, hard facts. Wikipedia follows the sources in their assessment of such connections. If there is due weight of sources saying that Clueless is such an adaptation of Emma, we follow that. If there is due weight of sources saying that a work is classified in so-and-so genre, we follow that. Who cares about the unsourced listings? It's not an AFD argument. Unsourced listings can be removed or sourced with the proper weight. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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