< 25 January	27 January >

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 Black panther. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keimu[edit]

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

We already have an article on the black panther, which treats adequately of the melanistic leopard. This article is essentially a wiktionary entry for a non-English term. Kevin McE (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black panther. No need for this stub with poor sourcing on a language-specific Black panther. I don't think the content merits merging.Eostrix (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support either deletion or redirect. This article is not maintained and adds nothing to Wikipedia.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support deletion. But not fully a redirect to black panther, as it appears that Keimu may also be a local name for a black Asian golden cat, or perhaps even any other black feline. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC), emphasized my decision BhagyaMani (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Black panther is not specific to leopard, its lead states: "A black panther is the melanistic colour variant of any Panthera, particularly of the leopard (P. pardus) in Asia and Africa, and the jaguar (P. onca) in the Americas." It is also used colloquially for other purported black big cats, such as the mountain lion. Reports on sightings down under: [1].--Eostrix (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CloudTest[edit]

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

This promotional brochure about a non-notable computer application is sourced only to product directories and blogs, some of which seem to have been deadlinks for quite a while. I have been unable to find anything better. Reyk _YO! 23:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but weakly) - Per nom., I believe this fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources although I do find plenty of promotional material. I also found a s security alert regarding multiple vulnerabilities. The article itself is in a very poor state and should at the very least be draftified. It is not ready for mainspace. It is unsourced and the barest of stubs. Yet WP:NEXIST says that the standard for deletion is that no sources exist, not that there are none in the article. It is possible that sources exist that I did not find. Should another editor turn up actual reliable sources demonstrating notability (not just promotional material or sources like the security alert that confirm existence but not notability) then I would be content to have my view interpreted as draftify. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K-Reen (album)[edit]

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

Non notable musical album by a non notable singer. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Nothing like using the word "spawning" to describe making music. Missvain (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. To be fair though, I have seen "spawning" used in this context before (i.e. Good Girl Gone Bad). I am not the biggest fan of it either, but there is a precedent for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Not enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 14:32, 29 January 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. Being bold and closing this early given the comments, and discussion below - WP:SNOW applies. Like Atsme noted, the article requires scrutiny for facts, and needs to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks everyone for your valuable contributions. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbaksh Chahal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability and reads like a tawdry coatrack rather than an encyclopedic worthy BLP. It is tabloid-worthy at best. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article has been on Wikipedia for 13 years. It has received the attention of numerous editors. What is "tawdry" and "tabloid-worthy" here is not the subject himself, but some of the subject's behavior. Gurbaksh Chahal does not "fail notability." He is a very successful software entrepreneur. If you were to remove every article on Wikipedia about a very successful software entrepreneur, you'd have to ax, I don't know, five thousand articles. If you were to remove every article about a software engineer whenever one got a stain on his reputation, you'd have to ax, I don't know, two thousand articles -- and the subjects would be grateful to have their articles expunged. Gurbaksh Chahal was probably delighted to be the subject of a Wikipedia article before news of his domestic violence became known. But he can't eat his cake and have it too. He was notable when he appeared on The Oprah Winfey Show. He was notable when he was featured on Extra TV as America's Most Eligible Bachelor. He was notable when served six months in jail for committing domestic battery. The man is notable! Chisme (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. User:Atsme did this request come from the user / their paid people via OTRS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, see this TP discussion on the BLP article. Hopefully, the encyclopedia is not going to become a criminal rap sheet for every small time entrepeneur who serves time in jail. It's tabloid news, not encyclopedic. As for anything pertaining to OTRS, please contact me privately. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief look it appears this person tried to buy an article about themselves. When it did not turn out well and they discovered they do not get to control the story they are now trying to get it deleted. They are using multiple socks and emailing multiple admins. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I was not aware of that, Doc. I can't possibly remember exactly what attracted me to a particular article. I tend to sniff out AfD's, redirects, etc. from the logs because of the various projects I work with (Project Dogs has been very active of late), and I'm also a (talk page watcher) for a few admins & several editors I've collaborated with, and I cruise AfC & NPP, as time permits. I'm a bit surprised that this particular BLP made it past NPP. I was remiss in not checking to see if mine was the 1st AfD or there was a history, so my apologies in that regard. I simply saw a terrible BLP. I think (hope) you are familiar enough with my work by now to know that if a BLP was truly notable, I could not be persuaded by any outside influence to whitewash it or delete it. I may be an easy touch in some regards (like giving in to grandkids who need $10 for gas) but I'm pragmatic to a fault. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course User:Atsme was not making any statement against you. Just wondering if they had also tried to bring in OTRS. I emailed you by the way if you prefer to share anything that way.

By the way we have a subarticle of this one RadiumOne Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, there are valid reasons to be suspicious of the business dealings and justification for notability based on conflicting $$ claims of worth/sales/purchases that have been reported, but in retrospect, I can see why it may be better to keep the articles in an effort to assure accuracy and proper disclosure, as long as we maintain NPOV and a dispassionate tone. Something smells a little fishy about the business dealings which lends credence to potential hype/promotion/advertising. See Business Insider, the conflicting prices published by CMO vs Vox, and the WaPo article that states: Several years later, he did it again with a company called BlueLithium, which he sold to Yahoo for $300 million, according to his LinkedIn page. According to his LinkedIn page? Also, RadiumOne acquisition by RhythmOne introduces a bit of questionable activity that requires scrutiny when citing RS in an effort to make sure the information is verifiable and corroborated by several high quality sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Chisme. Convicted domestic abuser Gurbaksh Chahal easily passes GNG and thus convicted domestic abuser Gurbaksh Chahal will have an article which gives proper weight to the fact that convicted domestic abuser Gurbaksh Chahal is a convicted domestic abuser. Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Ridiculous nomination. Current state of an article does never influence deletion and we have a ton of sources covering this man's exploits. In addition to the used sources, we have this, before the domestic-violence saga. How can anybody think someone who has sold multiple start-ups to internet-giants at millions of dollars, attracted a ton of news for domestic violence as a CEO gone rogue in prominent publications and been in BusinessInsider top-30-CEOs list of 2010 is non-notable, is beyond me. ∯WBG^converse 04:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was under the impression that for private people who are only ordinarily notable, we did not include negative material involving ordinary crimes that are unrelated to their reason for notability, I do not think his relative minor appearances make him the sort of public person who would be an exception. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, policy/guideline, please. WP:BLPCRIME explicitly disagrees with you. ∯WBG^converse 06:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yeah, I pretty much agree with the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article should be improved. There is enough in-depth coverage of the subject not involving the ordinary crime by independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can establish his inclusivity even using WP:BASIC. AfD isn't for clean up and being written by a paid contributor doesn't mean automatic delete. Missvain (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Plenty of coverage, particularly about his conviction and probation violation. Praxidicae (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally understand the reasons for the nomination and that this was done in good faith to hopefully encourage the UPE editors around this that this is a notable article. With that out of the way, the sources easily pass WP:GNG. The BusinessInsider article is a high-quality, in-depth article about Chahal. Likewise, another strong article on Cahal from the San Francisco Chronicle that also highlights his fall after his convictions. There are multiple sources highlighting the impact of his convictions on his companies at the time, showing why those convictions should remain in the article (impact to his career and impact to the companies). Article is well sourced, decently written now and I suspect will be well written in a short period of time. This should any notability questions to rest. Ravensfire (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G4, carried out by DGG (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regen power Pty ltd[edit]

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

Non notable organization that falls short of WP:NCORP & WP:CORPDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and add a dose of salt. Repost after deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regen Power. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagmohan Mehlawat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and I see no indication being "Mahamantri of Mehrauli" is WP:NPOL material. Clearly promotional. ミラ P 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, could possibly be an article created by the BJP's promotional editing staff. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:NPOL, has never been elected to office and is a puff-piece. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 09:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill newspaper distributor, party official, and local activist. Although it's written as if he's a big deal, he isn't according to what he's done. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails, WP:POLITICIAN, Likely promotional. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Indraj Singh[edit]

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

In addition to reading like a glowing campaign bio, the subject fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for a legislative assembly and fails WP:GNG as two of the four sources are just lists of candidates, one source is routine campaign coverage, and the fourth is a dead link to his political party's website. GPL93 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NPOL, has never been elected to office and is a puff-piece as he is a candidate contesting the upcoming 2020 Delhi Legislative Assembly election. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 09:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:PUFF, WP:MILL, WP:NPOL, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Wow, this page is a mess. You'd think he's the crown prince of Swat. (Don't @ me, I know it's a different country; it's an old political joke). It's clear by reading through the lines that this is an ordinary lower-level party leader who's capitalized on his parent's influence. The posed body shot alone would be reason to delete this mess. He's never been elected to anything, and his notability, unlike his party position, is not inherited. His board positions are laudable, but don't add to his notability. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 30 January 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 11:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factor Bikes[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are own web-site. Searches reveal only adverts , social media etc. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page because there was a redlink to it from the Israel Start-Up Nation page/infobox. If it makes a difference, there are a number of reviews of their bicycles as well as news stories about them on various cycling news/magazine websites.TGRFAN (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not sure its notable or not, doesn't seem to be though despite the existence of articles about them. There does seem to a lot of reviews of their products, but I'm not sure that makes them notable on its own. As the reviews seem to be very advertish and not neutral. For instance this one. Which has quotes from the CEO and seems very promotional. As well as this one. I wasn't able to find any articles specifically about the company itself per say. Just its products. So, if the article is kept and expanded it will probably just be a semi-promotional, POV suffering list of products. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HT-C truck[edit]

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

per WP:PRODUCT looks like a catalog entry. Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertising. Only source is an archived PDF. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can't see how this could possibly be considered as advertising though.----Pontificalibus 12:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Iranian origin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Spanish hasn't to my knowledge ever been in direct contact with an Iranian language. With the possible exception of the modern-day loan ayatolá, and leaving aside conceivable ancient borrowings from the Alans, all the words in the list have come to Spanish indirectly: most via Arabic, some out of the general pool of international words, or via Greek and Latin. The list is not etymologically coherent (unlike similar ones for Arabic or Nahuatl), and the fact that the individual words can ultimately be traced to an Iranian language is an interesting curiosity, it can make good material for a popular listicle on buzzfeed, but has no place in an encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the nominator's thoughts. Should a number of editors feel there is any reason to keep this list, I will add that it is unsourced, incomplete and wrong so in that case draftify would make sense. It is clearly not ready for mainspace even if it has value. However I think it lacks any encyclopaedic value so deletion is better. In the first nomination for deletion, arguments for retention were WP:OTHER which is not a reason to keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draft, The subject is good but the article does not show how each word traces to what word in Persian . So either delete it or give it a chance to complete it. Alex-h (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - right now this is sourced from a single source, which is de facto original research. I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Procedural close. Article was deleted under G4 in accordance with the discussion below. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Vanaja Bai[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Likely qualifies for speedy under G4, as a prior discussion about this topic existed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panyam Vuppu Vanaja Bai. The change of name was likely done to frustrate identification efforts. Article likely qualifies for speedy under G5, as article creator is potentially a sockpuppet of Pv.abhinav, who operated multiple accounts to try to get this article to stick. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb at this point can I still CSD it under G4?Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I think so, yes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Shyamsunder (talk) 22:39, 26 January 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. Closing this. The band passes WP:MUSIC given that they had a song on the Billboard charts. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esterlyn[edit]

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

Puff piece about a non-notable Christian band who doesn't appear to have charted anywhere (Air1 notwithstanding). I didn't notify the creator because s/he created the article in 2009 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they did have one hit on a Billboard chart shown here, also found a review fror one of their albums by AllMusic staff shown here which indicates there should be more reviews offline if not online, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baelnorn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails to establish notability, lacking any non-primary sources. TTN (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecrafter0271 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The previous AFD from the old days of 2007 resulted in a keep based on the argument that the creature appears in D&D rulebooks and novels, or based on the idea that there might be additional references. The former, of course, is completely invalid for establishing notability, and the latter turned out to be not true. There is no coverage in reliable, secondary sources that establish any kind of notability for this minor fictional creature, so it is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable with primary sources, as reflected in the sparse activity on the article following its 2007 AfD nom. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Starky[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Political candidates do not get Wikipedia articles as party nominees for office. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG though could pass in the future. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To be notable enough for inclusion here, an unsuccessful candidate must either (a) already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) be referenceable to such an unusual depth and range and volume of media coverage that he has a credible claim to his candidacy being much more special than everybody else's candidacies. But this is referenced 75 per cent to an indiscriminate and unreliable directory of political candidates, which is not support for notability at all, and the few sources that are real media coverage do not add up to enough media coverage to make his candidacy a special case. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perenial failure candidates are over and over not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I would keep as a perennial candidate, but that is not the ongoing consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jones (radio host)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG. The best available coverage is all from college newspaper pieces from before Jones even started his career. Other sources are WP:ROUTINE or not independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local radio host.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of sources about his radio career. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 11:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listed sources do not establish WP:GNG. They're either from his alma mater or are press blurbs about his moving to a new show. A couple of them are even repeated. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We have kept drive-time DJs, in the 4-6 PM hours. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 30 January 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. Lourdes 13:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taran (musician)[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Mitte27 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I struggled to find sourcing. There is even another band by the same name from Canada, which doesn't help. If there are sources that establish notability in Ukrainian or German, I'll reconsider. Missvain (talk) 23:44, 27 January 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adherer (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. It is only supported by a single trivial listicle. Seems like both previous AfDs were multi-nomination messes. TTN (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All cruft and no substance nor notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor fictional creature, whose majority of sources appear to be from primary sources and licensed game books. The one short blurb in a "top ten" style list being used is not nearly enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. There appears to be no further coverage of the creature in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason for Wikipedia to have articles on every possible character type in D&D.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raft Hill (co-op)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable student co-operative. No claims of notability and been tagged as dubious notability for over 11 years. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—could not find any coverage in independent sources. b uidhe 17:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was unable to find anything, even on Newspapers.com. Missvain (talk) 23:46, 27 January 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. If someone's terribly mortified at this deletion, please just tell and I'll undelete. Lourdes 13:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Delibash[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V, I cannot find any sources outside of Wikipedia that do not cite Wikipedia. Possible hoax. Roniius (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roniius (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Roniius (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is a hoax. I was able to find a Russian library listing for a power engineering textbook that he co-authored: [2]. All I could really find on him was this and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors, so he might not be notable, but I'd like to hear from a Russian speaker before weighing in on notability. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to rise to the level of passing notability for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 27 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Perret Cancer Services[edit]

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

Promotional article about an unremarkable cancer charity sourced entirely to the charity's own website. Coverage out there, is, as far as I can tell, all local news that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Almost certainly paid-for spam, which I've blocked the creator for. MER-C 11:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local charity. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Jafar[edit]

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

Non notable Jamaat-e-Islami's worker. Authordom (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the footnote is linked to a publicity page for a university press book, but he's not mentioned on that page so I wonder if he's discussed in the book?Jahaza (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a run of the mill activist. We are not a soap-box. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Neighbors (NGO)[edit]

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

I think they ought to be notable, but I have not been able to find third party sources, except some notices of specific projects, but nobody seems to have actually written about the group. The current article is a press release and nothing mor, . based on its own web pages.

I'll be very glad to withdraw this if anyone can find some 3rd party source from which to write an NPOV article. DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 26 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Mays[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only refs are primary and has been tagged as non-notable for more than a decade - hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Don't get her confused with the Canadian Elizabeth May... Missvain (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her main notability claim is not via general notability, but rather WP:ACADEMIC, as far as I can tell. Her textbooks are cited a couple of hundred times, but I wouldn't know if that's considered enough for her field. PK650 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, I'll update to say I also think she fails WP:ACADEMIC. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a review of one of the books, and a reference to another. It's not much, and I do not think she passes WP:PROF. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found and added one more book review. But I don't think one review of a co-authored book and one review of an edited volume is quite enough for WP:AUTHOR, and I also think that if we discount the citations to edited volumes her remaining citation record is not enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 29 January 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 ~~Islam in Greenland~~Religion in Greenland. Pretty clear consensus that the article needs to be gotten rid of, but it's not so clear if deletion or merge is the preferred outcome and most arguments are not terribly specific as to why a particular outcome would be preferred. The (few) arguments for deletion are that the sourcing is probably too sparse for merging any content over. The (equally few) arguments for merge is that people might want to find out about the topic. On balance, it appears that a redirect might be the best way to satisfy both arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amended the close, as I redirected to the wrong target in the original version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Greenland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted back in 2006 and it appears the rationale then is still as valid now.

(I would tag this for G4 but I wanted to play it safe since I can't see the deleted page on Deletionpedia, though I doubt it's very different from what it is now.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not a notable topic, given the extremely limited number of Muslims in Greenland. It almost seems the lack of Muslims in Greenland is more notable than the Muslims in Greenland, but that fact can easily be covered in a brief sentence in another article about Greenland. A standalone article is as unnecessary today as it was in 2006. Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Trivial information not worthy of an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I too think that it is a highly unqualified topic to be nominated as a subject for an article. This fact can easily be mentioned in the Greenland main page. DishitaBhowmik 10:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Religion in Greenland. The topic is one that raises some obvious questions that people may come to Wikipedia to find answers for.--Jahaza (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Religion in Greenland. There is not enough material for the topic to merit its own separate article. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Religion in Greenland, although since the first source has "Blog" in it's name, it's probably not WP:RS and shouldn't be merged over. Hog Farm (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Religion in Greenland Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need a religion article that mentions one not notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Religion in Greenland. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merege I am leaning towards delete as there are most likely not enough sources to accurately verify this. Also it seems kind of self prommotional. 8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 11:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested; see WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Ferraresi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was 'no consensus' in 2009 AfD which had little input. I couldn't find anything to show it could meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been tagged as non-notable for over a decade - hoping we can now resolve this, one way or the other. The article doesn't even really assert notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major label releases of chart success so no WP:MUSICBIO and there's not much in the way of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, so no WP:GNG 8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 11:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any independent sources, and also there are no references in the article. Countrychick56 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the music notability guidelines and the article currently does not provide the multiple, secondary reliable 3rd party sources needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Else[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG and has been tagged as such for over a decade - time to resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any sources to establish notability. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - substantial DisCogs listing, but I can't find any additional sources. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Edland[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, and has been tagged as such for a decade. Has articles in two other languages, but they added nothing. As the only ref is a deadlink, this is also essentially an unref article on someone who died relatively recently. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is made out of an entry in a paper encyclopedia. Couldn't be more WP:GNG than that. In addition no attempt has been made to expand the article. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Edland has entries in the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia and Norsk biografisk leksikon. TJMSmith (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — as well as the points mentioned above, there is also an obituary in the Norwegian Veterinary Association's journal Norsk veterinaertidsskrift, 1984, volume 96, page 427. I don't have access to the journal (so haven't added this to the article) but can see the first few lines of the obituary in Google Books' search results. DferDaisy (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in two major national encyclopedias should be enough. At least one of the two has plenty of content for expansion, but it would be far preferable if it were done by someone who reads Norwegian rather than trying to rely on dubious machine translations. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ANYBIO due to entries in Great Norwegian Encyclopedia and Norsk biografisk leksikon. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - excellent sourcing for a stub. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 30 January 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. Lourdes 13:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso DeNoble[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No independent third-party coverage and entire filmography consists of a whopping three films. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not meet WP:NACTOR guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Despite only appearing in three films, they all seem to be fairly notable and his roles fairly significant, too. More sources would be good, but the subject seems to be an interesting actor who may just scrape through in terms of notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:06, 29 January 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. Michig (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Zombies[edit]

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

Non-notable horror film with unreliable sourcing (IMDb, blog, VHS tape case). No third-party coverage and zero reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. I found the following sources with lots of material on the movie, all available from a Google Books search:

Zombie Movies: The Ultimate Guide by Glenn Kay, Chicago Review Press (2008)
Horror Films of the 1980s by John Kenneth Muir, McFarland (2010)
Book of the Dead: The Complete History of Zombie Cinema by Jamie Russell, FAB (2005)
Blood Sucking Freak: The Life and Films of the Incredible Joel M. Reed by John Szpunar, Headpress (2018)

I added them to the article under a "Further reading" heading, so that someone who wants to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the books coverage, there are a number of reviews listed here in this list of links but the only one im familiar with is TV Guide which is an ok source but some of the German ones might be reliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's IMDb, however, and their external review section contains user-submitted content in addition to the big names. I was able to get reviews posted there when I wrote for Yahoo! Voices in the early 2010s. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Internet Archive search also shows a ton of coverage in horror magazines like Fangoria, Gorezone and Psychotronic Video, plus a lot of underground fanzines. There are a lot of specialist sources (books and magazines) dedicated to cataloguing and classifying zombie movies. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although there aren't many sources there are a few. 8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 11:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article for "Night of the Zombies", should not be deleted. It is a notable "Nazi Zombie" horror film from the 20th Century. It should be left alone, or improved. Not simply deleted from existence. I agree with adding more sources. I disagree with deleting the whole article all together. I tired working on the "Horrors of War" 2006 film article, and it got railroaded for deletion, by small minded A-Holes. I have been trying to improve the "Nazi zombies" article, and relating articles. However it is very difficult when people keep coming along and try their best to delete everything. LEave the "Night of the Zombies" article alone, stop deleting everything! --ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 01:28, 01 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Google Books links, and tried to add more information and sourcing to the article from those books. --ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 13:31, 01 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Culley[edit]

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

Biography of a poet and photographer, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for either writers or artists. Creative professionals need to show evidence of their significance, such as winning noteworthy literary or art awards and/or receiving substantive critical or academic attention -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that he and his work existed, which is not an instant notability freebie for a writer or an artist in and of itself. And the only sources here are obituaries in a regional newsletter and his hometown local newspaper, which is not enough coverage to make a writer notable if he can't show awards or critical attention. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He passes GNG. Sources include:

"Respected poet remembered" from BC Local News
His work was published in Canadian Poetry[3]
"Hammertown, by Peter Culley" book review from The Georgia Straight
A paper was written about him and published in Canadian Poetry
"Life A Nanaimo Manual: On Peter Culley's Parkway" from the Poetry Foundation
"Peter Culley 1958-2015" from The Capilano Review
Another paper was written about him and published in the journal Public, which is published by York University
"Peter Culley (1958-2015)" from BC Bookworld
"Anthology of poetry from Cascadia celebrates sustainability, harmony with nature" from Vancouver Sun
"Art This Week: Kids reimagine sculpture, a poet goes visual, landscapes as a dream state" from Vancouver Sun

Missvain (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though they are ostly local news the subject does meet WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruffy 8 Lizard (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're for keeping it! FWIW, Canadian Poetry, Poetry Foundation, BC Bookworld, Capliano Review and the Vancouver Sun are not local news sources for the subject. He's from Naniamo which is not in Vancouver. The other publications are national. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Missvain. Angus1986 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources identified are sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Alexander[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a comedian, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for comedians. The only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the references are three blogs and a primary source which are not support for notability at all, not reliable or notability-assisting media. So nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecrafter0271 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did my due diligence and found one rather lame interview from Now and a preview of a show she's in was written about in the London Post but I can't find much more that establishes inclusion via GNG. Might be WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to establish WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruffy 8 Lizard (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've heard of her from touring North America, but don't know anything else. There are a similarly named scholar of nursing bioinformatics and a basketball player at Western New Mexico University. I've found some interviews but they might not add up to notability. Please ping me if you find anything better. 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"I've heard of her" is not a notability claim in the absence of properly sourced evidence that she passes the notability criteria for comedians. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Thériault[edit]

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

Biography of a person, not making any claim of notability strong enough to withstand how bad the "sourcing" is. The claims of notability here are that he was "the oldest active piano tuner in Canada" at the time of his death and that he persuaded the government of Canada to incorporate accessibility features for the visually impaired in Canadian paper money -- but neither of those are automatic inclusion freebies in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG for them, and the only source that's actually present here at all is his (deadlinked) paid-inclusion death notice on Obituaries Today, which was never a valid GNG-supporting source. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this, and I can't find any better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly - He seems like a nice guy with an interesting story, but I wasn't able to find any solid sourcing. I found one short human interest story about him (mostly an interview, with a brief introduction) and one newspaper article that quotes him as a CNIB official, but nothing that would really pass GNG, and nothing to support the claims of being the oldest piano tuner in Canada or being responsible for raised numbers on Canadian currency. The creator of the article is still active, so maybe they will be able to help with sourcing? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Journal Experts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination as I found this while patrolling PROD proposed deletions. An earlier incarnation of the article has previously been speedily deleted, and deleted at AfD.

The article was proposed for deletion by User:Adamant1.

- kingboyk (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing both the general notability guideline and the one for companies. I can barely find anything independent, let alone reliable, discussing the subject. Glades12 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Full disclosure: I created the current article, but I wasn't involved at all in the earlier deleted version (which looks promotional to me). The AfD discussion for the earlier version was in January 2008 -- more than 12 years ago -- and notability had changed significantly. Academic publishing might be niche, but the company has become well known and has received substantial coverage in the last 3 or 4 years. Even the template quick links offer articles from Inside Higher Ed, Nature (journal), Techdirt, and the state of São Paulo. I would suggest further editing and tagging. JUN1U5 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable. The Nature article doesn't even talk about the company except for a quick mention that's only semi-relevant and that's the only source that might be worth it, but a single reliable source isn't enough anyway. It definitely doesn't have "substantial coverage." At least not from doing a Google search. The only thing that did come up besides social media and Wiki type site links was a couple of PR releases masquerading as news. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am not seeing any in-depth coverage, few mentions of passing about its activities is not enough per NCOMPANY. Mention in Nature here [4] "large editing companies such as American Journal Experts (AJE)" is a nice description but is, well, hardly in-depth. Voting weak as I find articles about publishers useful, but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an accepted argument, and I have nothing else to thow for the keep side, so...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a publisher, it's a copy-editing service. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ferragine[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for journalists. As always, single-station TV personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their staff profile on their own employer's website offers technical verification that they exist -- the notability test for journalists requires things like notable journalism awards, or at least being the subject of a significant volume of coverage in sources other than their own employer. But three of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (staff profile, directory of his own video content on the website of the same station's daytime talk show, and his own alma mater's self-published list of its own alumni) -- and the only source that is real media is a small-town community hyperlocal "covering" him only in the context of owning a non-notable local greenhouse business rather than in the context of anything relevant to passing our notability criteria for journalists. So that's not enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the strongest source in play, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local level broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's the morning weather guy in Canada's largest English-speaking TV market. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not an instant notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about him in sources other than his own employer's self-published website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he has not been covered by any major news channel other than "CityNews and City New Canada" for which he works for. Non-notable Angus1986 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Winds Airport[edit]

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

This airport barely even exists, it is a grass field enclosed by a rectangle of barbed wire fence with a windsock. I drove by to take a photo for uploading to Wikimedia Commons/adding to the EN Wikipedia page (my new hobby, see McKinney National Airport for a successful effort today), but Four Winds isn't even accessible from the nearest road. It appears to be part of a ranch (signed "Four Winds Ranch") that's fenced off and legal for the property owner to land on. I can find literally nothing about this "airport" of genuinely encyclopedic relevance, just endless websites with the FAA directory listing information. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this guy's field isn't worthy of inclusion. Danazar (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Danazar (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a hunk of grass on which a small aircraft could be landed is really an airport. Can't find any substantive sources beyond autogenerated data pages. Airports are a reasonable thing for us to want to be comprehensive about, but not unpaved farmland. Reywas92^Talk 08:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. We are not a directory of every single tiny general aviation airport in North America. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 30 January 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) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Wynter[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for a one-off appearance in a decade-old YouTube video. This is referenced fully 75 per cent to sources that are not support for notability at all -- the YouTube video itself, somebody else's TED talk, and a blog -- and while there is one source that does represent real media coverage, one human interest piece in his own local hometown media is not enough media coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He only appeared in one viral video that is a decade old, as Bearcat mentioned. Also, there are literally four sources, which aren't even fully reliable except for TED! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Derek Sivers, maybe a separate section on his TED talks and other business talks ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 22:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC) (main contributor)[reply]
Delete, a merge would constitute WP:UNDUE weight in Sivers' article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thorne, Nevada[edit]

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

This article isn't notable in any way. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Your nomination rationale is too vague to comprehend why deletion is asked for here; please expand it further. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf:: The article literally has almost nothing. It doesn't mention whether Thorne is a town or what. For all I know, it's just a neighborhood. It is only one sentence saying where it is. No history, no nothing. That's why I nominated it for deletion.--Minecrafter0271 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thorne is listed in the GNIS as a populated place, so WP:GEOLAND applies. I agree that the article is a stub, I updated the article a bit. Recently, I've been updating Nevada geo stubs, there are plenty of pages that fall under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada like this one that need work. Cxbrx (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Friedrich Schultze (mathematician)[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, certainly doesn't meet any of WP:SOLDIER, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NACADEMIC is geared towards evaluating scholars and academics who are active currently or in the recent past; I don't think it's much help either way for someone active in the 1930s. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the Mathematics Genealogy Project.Jahaza (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of impact on mathematics, and no secondary sourcing to justify his notability as a wartime cryptographer. Merely being a Nazi mathematician is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a mention of him in this article, but it merely says "Almost nothing seems to be known about Dr. Johann Friedrich Schultze", and he's not mentioned in the abstract. Sounds like the wartime cryptography version of an average professor. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The !votes above seem to have it right. The notability case just isn't here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when almost nothing is known about a person or their work, why is there an article? Bearian (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Santiago[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is that he won a minor award at a local music festival in 2003, and otherwise this amounts to "he and his music exist" — and the only reference is a short piece in an alt-weekly, which is not enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only source you can show. This was a good faith creation under the much looser notability standards of 2007, when it was first created — but our inclusion standards have been tightened up considerably in the intervening 13 years, and under the standards of 2020 his notability claim and its sourcing just aren't enough anymore. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One Google search found 7 notable sources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Please do your due diligence before going straight to AFD. Specifically, as mentioned in AFD instructions please check "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." Thanks! Affied (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Affied, there's no need to be patronizing. Bearcat is an experienced Wikipedian who's well aware of the requirements of BEFORE. It's entirely possible that the results for "Curtis Talwst Santiago" didn't come back on a search for "Curtis Santiago". The name Talwst isn't in the present article, so how would anyone have known how include it in a search? I had to pick over your sources in some detail before I was even able to say with reasonable certainty they're the same guy - only two of the sources mention his musical career, and none in any detail that matches what's in the article as currently written. You're not wrong that the sources indicate notability as a visual artist, but you could be more polite about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the sources provided by Affied he appears to be notable as a visual artist, having given up his music career. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carroll Wood[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Being "the first Canadian Officer to fall in battle during the Boer War." and "He is the namesake of Chaswood, Nova Scotia" both lack RS and its questionable if either actually establishes notability. Doesn't meet any of WP:SOLDIER. The page seems to be more about his family than him, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Even his status as a Canadian seems questionable. He was educated in England and served in an English regiment, though he did his officer training in Canada. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Goldberg[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a poet, not making or sourcing any claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The only discernible notability claim here is that she and her work exist, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of any evidence of her importance (e.g. notable literary awards, critical or academic attention, etc.), and the only reference is a directory entry on the self-published website of an organization she's directly affiliated with, which is not a notability-making source. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything to establish she should be included in Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My experience is that poets at this level (multiple published chapbooks, no major awards) are very difficult to source or demonstrate notability, and this one seems to be no exception. It doesn't help that our article spells her middle name wrong (should be Rajnus not Rainus) but with that change I still couldn't find any good sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Voicing rationale provided by Johnpacklambert. No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to substantiate nor prove notability.Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source and not a reliable independent one at that. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V; see Vanier College website. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asserting that she exist really don't count as notability. Graywalls (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only Rock 'N Roll 1955-1959: 20 Pop Hits[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only coverage provided is a very short AllMusic review, and I wasn't able to find anything else in a BEFORE search. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any kind of Allmusic coverage is par for the course and this album is no more special than other oldies compilations out there. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compilations like this are a dime a dozen, and I would know as I own dozens of them. Having a bunch of notable songs released decades ago doesn't make an album notable. If Wikipedia were to have articles for any album just for having only a review by AllMusic, it would be AllMusic. WP:NALBUMS, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Cadena Deulen[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. A book or two. Several unattributed awards and appointments. Of those attributed, they reference the book itself rather than provide evidence of the award. (I think there's one exception to this ...) Mikeblas (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least two of those awards check out, and they are nontrivial awards. -Jordgette [talk] 18:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Deulen's book of poetry, Our Emotions Get Carried Away Beyond Us probably has enough for a standalone article due to Stafford/Hall Award for Poetry 2017 finalist, reviews by The Volta Blog - "REVIEW: Our Emotions Get Carried Away Beyond Us by Danielle Cadena Deulen", American Microviews & Interviews - "Our Emotions Get Carried Away Beyond Us by Danielle Cadena Deulen", Statesman Journal - "Poetry book up for Oregon Book Award looks at violence", Denise Duhamel - "Poetry News in Review: New Books", Geffrey Davis calling it "incredible". Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes WP:ARTIST. Also, winning the Oregon Book Award is a big deal. Sourcing and examples:

"Poetry book up for Oregon Book Award looks at violence" from Statesman Journal
Poem published in the Kenyon Review
"OUR CONVERSATIONS COLD-PRESSED" from The Rumpus
"Visiting author Danielle Cadena Deulen to give craft talk, reading" from The Oakland Post
Poem published in The North American Review
Poem published in The Missouri Review
"APERTURE: Optics: An opening, usually circular, that limits the quantity of light that can enter an optical instrument" published in The Iowa Review
Review of her piece "The Riots" in The Iowa Review
Interview with her in The Missouri Review
Review of "Lovely Asunder" from 15 Bytes

Missvain (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. The awards and their sources appear to be enough. But the text of the article seems to be mainly copied and in some cases lightly reworded from her own home page. It needs to be cut to more factual, neutral, original, and sourceable prose. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 28 January 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. Michig (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Kalansooriya[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks 'significant coverage' (instead it is merely a series of mentions in passing) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Daily FT, which is the individual's employer, promotes him as being 'the 9th most influential columnist in Sri Lanka' - which borders on being self promotional (a newspaper saying one of its own journalist is really good?). One of the other sources doesn't even include a reference to the individual but another non-notable journalist. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dan arndt: There are 2 sources so far about the survey (out of 3), and it wasn't done by Daily FT. It was done by SLIM, and this is clearly stated on both of the sources. I just need some time to gather all of the sources. Both Daily FT and Daily mirror reports this, as well as some other papers.

Also, the article reference is there to only support the fact the Mr. Jayasinghe is a member of UNFPA. It's in the article.

I apologize or any inconvenience, and thank you for editing and/or pointing out the flaws. Please give me some time to complete the article.

Thx. Buenosdiass (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as previously stated all we have is a series of mentions. It appears to be solely reliant on a statement by a non notable organisation that he is the '9th' most influential columnist in the country, with the three references simply saying the same thing - nothing clarifying how the institute came to that conclusion. This is simply not enough to justify notability. There is no other coverage or supporting information as what specific impacts his column/opinions have had. There is not evidence linking Klansooriya to Jayasinghe, so the reference to Jayasinghe doesn't make much sense. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't understand what you meant by "non-notable". Sri Lanka Institute of Marketing isn't a non-notable organization. Neither are all the newspapers that reported this. Just because these institutions don't have Wikipedia pages and international press coverage, doesn't mean that their authority is any less. Also, I can't list how SLIM's article about how they 'came to that conclusion' because it's primary source. I just need some time to find a secondary source about it.
Buenosdiass (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have provided a response on your talk page. Dan arndt (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage from any reliable sources that I can find, just the passing mentions currently linked in the article. Fails WP:GNG and no evidence of passing any other SNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 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. Michig (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction and Green Acres episodes[edit]

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

Unnecessary and redundant as all three shows already have complete episode listings in their respective articles. No logical place for a redirect so proposing outright deletion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator says it all, we have episode lists for all three shows, and 90% of readers here don't think of the shows as a shared universe. Why this article was ever created is beyond me. Nate • (chatter) 02:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the three individual series' episode lists. While the three shows may have shared a continuity, that doesn't mean we need this rather confusingly laid out combination of all of their episodes. Rorshacma (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend Split as those are three different shows, but we might not want to delete it. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A split is completely unnecessary; List of The Beverly Hillbillies episodes, List of Petticoat Junction episodes, List of Green Acres episodes all exist, and all have 'guest star from related show appears' lines in appropriate episodes. WP:BEFORE applies to votes! as equally as it does to nominations. Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to split or merge, per nom and editors above, the content is already fully covered in other existing lists. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't figure out why on earth someone would want to combine all three episode lists into one, using such a confusing layout. Ajf773 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a confusing way to present information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The shows share a common universe (with some characters crossing over into other shows), but that's no reason for this train wreck of a junction. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction and Green Acres crossover episodes and reduce to only those episodes that are crossovers. At least this will support the shared universe angle. BD2412 T 03:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in Crossover (fiction)#Between established shows, but I'm not sure it merits a standalone article. Possibly a merger of the sublist there? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 29 January 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.