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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Caplan[edit]

Gordon Caplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It appears this article was created March 2019 from only college scandal news, rather than encyclopedic notability about him. Further research does not come up with particularly notable - appears he is only known for the college scandal. Seems like this is undue weight about a crime in this article, and his involvement is sufficiently covered in the main 2019 college admissions bribery scandal page. Gentry862 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete known only in connection with a crime which is not big enough to merit articles on all those charged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reason why he should have an article, Not notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E, the article is about as WP:UNDUE as one can get. -kyykaarme (talk) 22:38, 3 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. It looks like there is no actual evidence of notability here, as all the sources presented so far have been contested on the grounds of not satisfying WP:SIGCOV, with only weak rebuttals or none at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Simmons[edit]

Jamal Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No ind. coverage from reliable sources. May not meet WP:GNG. Wanderer0 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Draftification (in absence of proven reliable, independent source coverage that is both in-depth and at-length in at least two other sources beyond the BET article identified by Rosguill) Whether this subject qualifies as meeting our supplementary notability guidelines (SNGs), that's not a substitute for passing WP:GNG. My review of the non-duplicate Google web search and Google news search shows no independent, reliable source coverage is both in-depth and at length. Most the press mentions are passing mentions, in reference to Mr. Simmons' television appearances, being quoted in the mass media, or articles he has written. Nothing on which we could write more than a perpetual, stub-class article. As such, regardless of any potential SNG pass, fails WP:GNG. This reminds me of the Erica C. Barnett AfD about a non-notable digital news reporter and Internet blogger that closed as delete. Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I was able to find this profile on BET, so we do have one example of significant coverage in an independent source. That doesn't get us all the way to GNG, but I did find pages upon pages of search results featuring trivial or non-secondary coverage of the subject, even after filtering out articles written by Simmons (by excluding search results from publications that Simmons has written for) which means that it's not impossible that there is more significant coverage buried out there that I didn't find. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Good find about the BET profile, though I'm not certain I'd qualify that as "in-depth," so I'd prefer to find at least three other in-depth sources before I'd consider changing my !vote. I wouldn't be opposed to a draftification, without leaving a redirect, of this article either. Doug Mehus T·C 23:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, honestly my "weak" qualifier is more due to the mountain of search results than due to the BET profile; if I was confident that I'd read through every article mentioning Simmons on the internet I would have voted delete without qualifications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've added to my own !vote and rationale that draftification is a solid outcome here in absence of proven significant coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 23:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There is a press release from The Hill which names Simmons. But focused on Hill.TV launch. Rdzogschen (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rdzogschen, Yeah, and it's a press release, which wouldn't meet our definition of a reliable, and independent source. Like you said, I'd call it non-qualifying coverage. Nevertheless, we can't really keep this article without proving we have at least three in-depth and reliable, independent sources, which is why I think draftification is the answer. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so long as improvements are being made, and this would move it out of indexed Main: namespace where the subject benefits from search engine optimization. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: Not disagreeing as 42 fan, but officially THREE is an essay in the user namespace. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Finding a journalist’s bio on a site doesn’t mean much, however if the was an article that was interviewing the subject about his career on a third part news site would be notability attribute. I fail to see anything that shows notability. Journalists are always getting passing mentions after all it’s their field but it doesn’t mean every journalist in the world is notable or does it? Jaxbrother (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The content about the subject need more expansion and slightly missing out on notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though Simmons is less notable than Krystal Ball, it looks like we could easily double the number of sources that this article uses. Some of the ones that focus on him entirely are: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Connor Behan (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Link 1 is an interview without any independent coverage of Simmons as a subject. Links 2 and 3 are also interviews, although they open with a paragraph about Simmons' career, so they contribute a little bit toward notability if the publications are reputable (3 boasts a fully professional masthead; 2 does not). Link 4 does not appear to be independent, as the context would suggest that this was a blurb written to accompany Simmons' speaking at an event hosted by the publisher. All told, I think that between link 3 and the BET profile I found earlier, we're coming close to GNG, but I'd like to see another example of independent and significant coverage before changing my vote. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Rosguill, Agreed. I think with such little coverage, the strongest case could be made for draftification here. What do you think? Doug Mehus T·C 21:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dmehus, I'm not overtly opposed to draftification, but I'm not sure I see it as any different than deletion. Essentially all of the sources which have been found that contribute to notability have been raised in this discussion; they are not currently cited in the existing article. And without an editor in this discussion that has expressed a clear sense of ownership for the article, the draft would probably end up languishing in draft space forever. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  True, I'm just thinking this would be a way to preserve the article's editing history in Draft: space if we don't end up finding another, independent, and thorough source about this political strategist/pundit. We may well find that additional source; this is a very borderline case of whether we "keep" or "delete." Doug Mehus T·C 22:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point about the Washington Post blurb. A lot of stuff out there seems to have similar independence issues but I was able to find these links: [5], [6], [7]. Connor Behan (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment::Link 1; Simmons is just doing his job as a journalist it doesn’t make him notable. Nowadays everything gets online and is easy to find, before when news was in print you couldn’t find someone like you can now. It’s too easy to Find a journalist’s work and passing mention. I still believe if this article passes then every professional journalist in the English speaking world can get a Wikipedia article done for them. Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per my comment above. Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not many sources and his work history is mundane. Bring him back if he writes a book. Dorama285 00:02, 03 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) 09:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David North (screenwriter)[edit]

David North (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources since 2017, and my online search doesn’t bring up any notable coverage, just lots of passing mentions and IMDB sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I struggled to find anything to establish both GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:CREATIVE, in particular point #3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." NCIS is certainly a noteworthy and long-running TV series, and he's been one of the main writers since the show began in 2003. -2003:CA:870E:7037:1476:7554:8197:AEDE (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing even approaching a reliable source. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. Being a "main writer" on a project is not the same as being the creator. We clearly cannot keep the article at all without actual reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. no reliable sources to meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:12, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lewis (composer)[edit]

Paul Lewis (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources since 2016, and I cannot find any sources that are independent and therefore indicate notability. Not to be confused with the classical pianist of the same name. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found zero after four different searches. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. He might be notable for his TV work, but we'd have to see some sources to gauge that. As it stands he appears to fail the GNG. PK650 (talk) 22:43, 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. Consensus was that the page was notable, but requires cleanup. (non-admin closure) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 08:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (charity)[edit]

Ark (charity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable organisation with content added by editors with COI issues. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the article as it stands, the subject is notable as a major academy chain that is part of a controversial shift in the governance and provision of education in England - it has a higher profile than some of the other academy chains with their own articles linked from the section 'Operators' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-academy_trust--Hmee2 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Definitely notable as MAT in the UK educ system, and for philanthropy, but undoubtedly needs cleanup. --Mervyn (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Definitely notable as MAT- please read the multi-academy trust article to understand the significance of MATs. If you have time please help to address the shortcomings. We have two tags here but no explanation on the talk page about what they mean. A single user entered a list of date that is by law public published information in 2016, and this has all been checked over and reformatted since. The claim that this is an advertisement is ridiculous, the difficulty here is finding articles that are not negative. If you have further ideas on how to improve the structure, have a look at other articles in Category:Multi-academy trusts and put your suggestions on the talk page. ClemRutter (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:, It has notability for its academy chain Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmee2, Alex-h, ClemRutter, Mervyn - thanks for the comments. Whilst I agree that MATs are notable, I cannot find any evidence that Ark is notable. Are there any secondary independent sources that can be added to the article? At the moment, the article only has primary sources which are not acceptable under WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:18, 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. BD2412 T 03:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reel[edit]

Christopher Reel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable author, with the only sources being a blogspot post (unreliable) and another archived page announcing a festival reading of one of his short stories. Amir Jones, who created the article, has only ever contributed to this article, an article for the author's primary work, Happy Face, and a related disambiguation page. — TAnthony^Talk 22:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' - writer whose career seems to have gone nowhere. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', No reliable sources, does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No reliable sources found. Article feels like a quickie PR attempt that failed. Does not pass WP:BIO and does not meet WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability, either through WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 4 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Face[edit]

Happy Face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book with only a blogspot post as a "reference". Amir Jones, who created the article, has only ever contributed to this article, an article for its non-notable author, and a related disambiguation page. — TAnthony^Talk 22:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Point to Happy face Move Happy face here. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - one source is not significant coverage; no allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Fails WP:NBOOK as there are no reliable sources discussing it. After deletion, either the original redirect to Happy face should be restored, or, as suggested by Hyperbolick, that disambiuation page should be moved here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear WP:NBOOK fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 4 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. After disregarding Adamyouthold's disruptive walls of text, it's 1:3, all of which make reasonable arguments. Good enough for rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 21:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allflaws[edit]

Allflaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

perhaps i am missing something but it doesn't appear this band has ever or is currently notable. searching google and various music review sites gives me nothing, newspaper archives, books and magazines are the same. I don't see any major labels or charting. Fails NMUSIC. Praxidicae (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae,

Please understand that Allflaws is an underground music act that have been releasing records since 2004 on Derelict State Records. I have just maintained this page and tried to keep to the rules and help build up my skill set on Wikipedia. Allflaws from my research definitely warranted a page and passed the criteria for notoriety and credentials. So I think it would be a shame if it was deleted. I would hope it could be modified instead and that would be a compromise. This page has been running for over ten years and I think the problem is that any articles have been put in External Links and not References. I have posted articles in the External Links section where you can see press that Allflaws has had for well over a decade. These articles should actually be in the References section as I said. They need to be moved there as that's where they should be located. That might be why you can't see any validation of notoriety. Please look at these articles in the External Links section for validation that this is a notable artist worthy of a page. I think these articles and the social media presence on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter will all reinforce this.

I am trying to find a way to get some of the links into references so you can see that this artist is credible. Please help with this? Please could you kindly remove the deletion tag and I will try moving all the articles from the External Links section into References section.

Thank you and sorry for any confusion with my article.

Here are some links to publications who have published Allflaws. Most of them are in the External Links section but need to be in References. Please have a look at them.

https://bbmlive.com/allflaws-music-video-gets-banned-from-youtube/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.londonstreetartdesign.co.uk/new-rebel-spirit-video-from-allflaws/

http://www.aaamusic.co.uk/2012/03/16/allflaws-releasing-new-single/

http://www.supajam.com/news/story/Allflaws-Bristolian-darkness/

http://abortmag.com/2010/03/bristol-trip-hoppers-allflaws-release-new-video/

https://rdl.de/beitrag/forward-all-directions-24-september-mitternacht-allflaws-feature

https://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/releases-news-165/12057-allflaws-release-qr-complexq-video/

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/allflaws-escaping_sanity/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclaim!

https://www.famemagazine.co.uk/fame-recommends-allflaws/

http://regenmag.com/news/allflaws-release-new-ep/

http://thenervousbreakdown.com/gcurran/2010/11/21-questions-with-gabriel-curran/

http://flaneur.me.uk/06/new-album-from-allflaws-versus-the-soul/

http://www.prog-sphere.com/news/allflaws-release-new-album-versus-the-soul/

https://phonic.fm/2013/allflaws-announce-release-date-of-new-album-versus-the-soul/

https://afterdark.co/blog/reviews/allflaws-releasing-new-album/

https://www.nocturnal.asia/news/allflaws-set-to-release-acid-face-video/

http://www.brutalresonance.com/news/industrial-hip-hop-project-allflaws-releases-new-album-mysterium/

https://www.hitzound.com/allflaws-cast-away/

http://alternation.eu/allflaws_-_black_box_here_after,id,2015,aktualnosci.html

http://www.mayhemderanged.com/e_fuse1007.pdf/

http://read.uberflip.com/i/88421-issue-44-2012/35?m4= - page 37

https://guestlist.net/newspapers - see issue 44 page 37

https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Allflaws/74138/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnikmusic

Here are some links for external Links section

https://www.allflaws.com https://www.facebook.com/Allflaws https://twitter.com/ALLFLAWS http://derelictstaterecords.co.uk/artists.html

Hope this helps

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything to show show this meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. While there is some coverage, as shown above, hardly any of these are either in-depth or reliable. Sorry, but this does not pass the notability criteria. — sparklism ^hey! 13:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have put plenty of credible and reliable coverage above. Plus there was also old coverage which has since gone out of date which I can find again. It just seems that this artist and this article will be unfairly thrown in the trash. For over ten years I have looked after this page and it now seems to be getting undermined, discredited and targeted. I've seen pages with far less coverage stay active. I just hope there is some justice here and someone takes time to look at the evidence. I can only hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put around 19 publication links above who have press coverage on Allflaws. Hope this can help.

• Adamyouthold, the article is not being "undermined, discredited and targeted", it is simply being assessed to see if it meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. If you believe that these criteria are met, then please provide some evidence. At present, there are no reliable sources in the article that indicate the notability of this artist. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 07:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sparkism, I really am finding it hard to see how these articles are not credible and reliable and do not indicate notability. There are publications from Holland, Germany, USA, UK, Canada, Asia and are doing features and interviews with Allflaws. I have now put another link above amounting to 20 publications. Once again please look through these. Thanks

• Adamyouthold, discussions are easier to read on pages like this one if you sign your posts. Thanks.
  The links you give show that the artist exists, but that alone is not enough to meet the Wikipedia standard for notability. Of the 20 links you have posted, which one(s) of these would meet the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources set out at WP:RS and therefore help to meet the guidelines for inclusion through significant coverage? If you read the links I have posted this might help you show us how this artist meets the requirements for an article on Wikipedia. — sparklism ^hey! 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The bulk of the links posted above are album release blurbs, and many amount to what's likely a lightly padded press release at best. However, this writeup [8] and this article [9] both seem to constitute independent and significant coverage of the band. I've seen shorter pieces than either pass for WP:SIGCOV, and I can't find reason to think either source is unreliable. BBM is one of Sydney's free weeklies, and Fuse has substantial history. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that FUSE in theory would lend itself to being notable, I don't see that being the case here since it's a 3 sentence blurb. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same piece? I agree that it's short, but it's a couple of paragraphs long, not 3 sentences. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, its a total of 4 sentences. It is condensed into a small space, if it were typed out it would look basically like my response now. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy-pasted it into the editing area and you're simply incorrect. I also count 8 sentences, many of which are quite long and list off comparisons to other bands, etc. This conversation is feeling pretty pedantic at this point, so I'm going to step back and wait for others to weigh in. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletor3000

Perhaps you're not looking at the right text. It's no more than a single paragraph when written in full form. It is not in depth coverage but there is absolutely no sense in quibbling over the length of it because anyone can see it is not substantial in the slightest. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the length is in debate to the point that you assume I've read the wrong review actually makes me think you aren't recognizing that the second paragraph of the writeup is still talking about Allflaws. It's the portion that provides comparisons to other acts, etc. that I believe make it of reasonable depth. Please check the source again. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is the same Fuse magazine. Fuse_(magazine) is a Canadian publication about 'interchange between art, media, and politics'. While the Fuse mag in this source appears to a British publication focused music, especially live music. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletor3000 Thank you for clarifying that. I do appreciate you looking at the information and giving your opinion. I have also found this interview with US publication (The Nervous Breakdown) http://thenervousbreakdown.com/gcurran/2010/11/21-questions-with-gabriel-curran/ They Also have a Wikipedia page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nervous_Breakdown_(magazine) Adamyouthold (talk) 17:38, 44 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interview, not coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae It just seems that you are being pedantic and looking for holes in this article. I think it has a enough coverage to justify being notable. I have seen pages with less coverage and they have no problems. Adamyouthold (talk) 20:07, 44 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn to comment on content and not editors. I'm not being pedantic, I'm basing this on policy and consensus, Adamyouthold. Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Praxidicae, I am just baffled to why this page has been placed under scrutiny when it seems to meet the criteria. Adamyouthold (talk) 20:30, 44 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this. I have also put it into the links above. It is a well known established magazine in London called the GuestList who have interviewed and featured many well known artists from around the world. https://guestlist.net/newspapers. In issue 44 page 37 Allflaws have album of the month http://read.uberflip.com/i/88421-issue-44-2012/35?m4= Adamyouthold (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also put this in the links above https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Allflaws/74138/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnikmusic Adamyouthold (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this feature on German Radio https://rdl.de/beitrag/forward-all-directions-24-september-mitternacht-allflaws-feature - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Dreyeckland Adamyouthold (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is helpful. Here is some coverage in a Canadian publication Exclaim. https://exclaim.ca/music/article/allflaws-escaping_sanity/ - Here is their wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclaim Adamyouthold (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After looking through everything above I don't see how this band, well more of a pseudonym really (if it is a band rather than a bunch of session musicians, who are the other members?), passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NMUSIC. All of the sources are nothing more than press releases or wikt:churnalism saying he released a new album or video and [10] [11] these "reviews" don't read as in-depth critical prose. The BBM website is rather strange, if you go out of the article and onto the rest of the website I'm left with the impression that it is a glorified version of Classified advertising. If banning the video was notorious why is it only on this website? Finally no Allmusic listing page. Mattg82 (talk) 21:58, 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. Sandstein 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Kauai helicopter crash[edit]

2019 Kauai helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tragic but small plane/helicopter accidents are very common. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it received worldwide coverage. CNN - etc. No way to know if it is WP:LASTING or notable - or has somehow impacted the industry. I sympathize with the nominator's WP:NOT argument and I believe it applies here. Perhaps in a WP:ATD it can be redirected or merged somewhere - I am just not sure where.Wm335td (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Hawaiian air tourism industry is facing increased scrutiny in general after a number of fatal accidents as noted in 2020; perhaps there could be a larger air tourism article or even a section within Tourism in Hawaii with a table of accidents. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the article from Mliu92 (above) notes, air tourism is under scrutiny in Hawaii after a number of accidents--not just this one. I can't find anything indicating this crash is singularly notable in that regard. I have a feeling something will happen in Hawaii regarding reforms to air tourism, but that may be captured in a single article that describes the accidents that have happened and driven changes, not requiring a separate article for each... Shelbystripes (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Run of the mill helicopter accident, with no lasting notability, tragic but not worthy of a stand-alone article. Add an entry in the aircraft's accidents and incidents section. fails WP:NOT WP:LASTING WP:GNG (on the basis that the coverage was short-lived)--Petebutt (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simply fails notability for a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete − WP:RUNOFTHEMILL general aviation accident, tragically with a relatively high fatalities count but otherwise not particularly notable in its own right. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - final reports are not out yet. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 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 keep. Sandstein 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenista[edit]

Gardenista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Remodelista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

I agree with the original prod however, this was paid for spam created several years ago, apparently under the radar and has resulted in citogenesis. There is no true in depth coverage of Gardenista or Remodelista (hence the bundle.) It's all PR puffery, passing mentions or unreliable nonsense. Also see this related AFD Praxidicae (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about paid contributions, however both Remodelista and Gardenista are known names here in the US. Let me see if I can clean up the articles with some real citations and lose the junk. -- EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Remodelista with proper citations, new structure, removed paid spam articles etc. Requesting that deletion notice is removed. Planning to do the same for Gardenista EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I've already revised Remodelista. Will do the same cleanup for Gardenista over the weekend. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gardenista rewrite done. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like a notable company from the references and coverage. Most importantly, editing is a preferred alternative to deletion, so kudos to EricAhlqvistScott! JUN1U5 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both I find that these are two notable internet publications. They both have multiple RSs. My WP:BEFORE revealed non0trivial secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although this is listed under AfDs for organisations/companies (and it would deffo fail WP:NCORP as the sources fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH), the article seems to me to fit more in with WP:WEB which has a much looser adherence and interpretation of the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Was Totally Destroying It[edit]

I Was Totally Destroying It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:GNG. Sourced mostly from blog. This is not something that suggests it is GENRALLY notable. It was previously nominated and deleted with unanimous consensus and it should not have been re-created. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. The previous AfD included lots of WP:AADD, and the article was rightly re-created. I have added several independent sources to the article since it was nominated; there are more beyond what I've included. Chubbles (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not as enthusiastic as the previous voter, but what the article really needed at the time of nomination was more sources (see WP:NEXIST). They got some coverage in the indie rock press, concerning their success in their local scene, and the AllMusic entry helps, so they have evidence of meeting WP:NBAND #4 and 7, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are multiple reliable sources references added to the article such as Alternative Press, PopMatters, AllMusic and a number of newspaper articles so WP:GNG is passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Crossing, California[edit]

Wild Crossing, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources indicate this is exactly what the name suggests: a road crossing of the Mojave River [12][13][14][15][16]. I was unable to find evidence this is the name of a community or that it is notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does not meet WP:GEOLAND, the WP:BEFORE by the nominator is sufficient evidence Wm335td (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per WP:OUTCOMES. We have been over this before: fords and bridges are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:49, 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. Sandstein 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Lebanon Ice Center[edit]

Mount Lebanon Ice Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ice arena that fails WP:GEOFEAT. Standard expected mentions exist, but no significant coverage appears to be out there. Notability template in place since 2009. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 16:01, 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) 20:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in the Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

Battles in the Chronicles of Narnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is just a plot only, overly in-depth summarization of fictional events already covered in the main articles. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 02:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and something has got to be wrong when almost all references are directly from the C.S. Lewis novels themselves. In addition, along the same lines First Battle of Beruna and Second Battle of Beruna should be nominated as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no useful content here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no secondary sources to justify this as a stand alone topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. (Lions and tigers and bears were involved? Oh, my!) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meh. Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 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. Looks like the consensus is that the topic does not in fact satisfy NACTOR Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Agarwal[edit]

Aditi Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This actress has only acted in one successful film. None of the references support her film career. Additionally, this article is being vandalized. Maybe this article can be a redirect to Gangotri. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, she does meet WP:NACTOR criteria one, as she has starred in two notable films. However, one of these films, (Vidyardhi) is a poorly referenced stub that currently fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: The actress has had starring/main roles in a few films, though the notability of some of those films is questionable. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different person from the one we are discussing here, this is that person's sister, and as far as I can tell they are still alive Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were about this person, BLP1E (or BDP1E) applies. Praxidicae (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films" and the above evidence and sources in the article do not demonstrate that. The other basis for notability is her arrest 12 1/2 years ago, which presents both WP:BLP1E and WP:NCRIME concerns. I suppose a career revival after over a decade is possible, but not likely. If such does occur, it can be recreated with little here to preserve against such an event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Voicing the rationale provided by Eggishorn. Not a notable actor as per GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I feel like we've been through this before. She's not notable as an actress because of her one starring role, and one fight creates a BLP problem and doesn't make her notable. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject should have significant roles in multiple notable films as per WP:NACTOR. GargAvinash (talk) 05:41, 4 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) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Narnian creatures[edit]

List of Narnian creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a list of trivial in-universe creatures. I know the series itself has a good deal of symbolism, but I don't think that applies to an assortment of real animals and real world mythological beings. The series has a character list, so this has zero utility as a spin out list. It is just content for a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The content of the article is currently extremely poorly sourced (only one source is actually potentially valid, and its only being used to support a single entry), and there seems to be quite a bit of pure plot summary and WP:OR. It also appears to fail WP:LISTN - while there are a handful of sources that talk briefly about some of the creatures that appear in Narnia, those sources appear to be limited to a handful of only the most narratively important, rather than any kind of discussion of every type of creature that was mentioned in one of the books. As a final note, despite the appearance of copious amounts of blue links, it also does not serve a useful purpose as a navigational tool, as they all are just links to the articles on real-world animals and mythological beings. Rorshacma (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having a listing of all of the animals Lewis included in the series does not seem to pass WP:LISTN. Also a WP:GNG fail, while the symbolism behind the animals is likely notable, a listing of the critters themselves definitely is not. Hog Farm (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am against this deletion. While we do have actual animals and mythical creatures on that list, where would we list the ones that are exclusive to the book series. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. From what I'm aware, the Narnia series uses largely creatures that already existed in fantasy. Therefore, there is no need to list them out._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list is an indiscriminate collection of in-universe content. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already have an article on Puddleglum. This article needs way better sources to justify its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 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 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Cue[edit]

Why Cue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

please look into this page Why Cue for deletion as I do believe it doesn’t meet wiki notability requirements and does present references in reliable sources 67.81.121.57 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completing a request on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is too soon for an article on this artist. He has lengthy interviews in a couple of viable music magazines (currently footnotes 2 and 3 in the article), but they consist of mostly softball questions designed to let him introduce himself. Otherwise his coverage consists of brief introductions to videos and the like. For now he has too few accomplishments and not enough reliable media coverage about them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 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) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Stammeyer[edit]

Virgil Stammeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A biography on an individual that only appears to have local notability. Both of the sources currently being used come from the same local newspaper, and one of them is just his obituary. Searching for additional sources turned up nothing of substance - his name was mentioned in a few documents concerning the court case he was involved in, but that's it. It would also appear that his notability came only from the June 1990 event that the bulk of the article is used to describe, which means that this would also fall under WP:BIO1E. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A few reliable sources cover the subject in a single event for an otherwise low-profile person. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:53, 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) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzan Utsiyev[edit]

Ramzan Utsiyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a Russian Cup (football) match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer (if you filter out articles on his famous older brother, Rizvan Utsiyev) in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [17]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; it is well established that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is comprehensively failed. GiantSnowman 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we clearly need to tighten our football notability guidelines. They are supposed to approximate people who will pass GNG, and at present they clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dancehall Brukout Vol. 1[edit]

Dancehall Brukout Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. All coverage appears to be PR related to the album's release or database listings without any independent analysis of the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can find no evidence of this record being covered in any significant and reliable sources, and the same can also be said for almost everyone on it. The sources already in the article are basic promotional announcements or worse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mozenda[edit]

Mozenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. The article is sourced by corporate profiles and press releases. I was unable to locate any descriptive details about this company in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources in article, no coverage in any major news sources, fails WP:GNG and clear violation of WP:NOTPROMO. Thurm64^talk_{my edits} 22:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - references are lists or in passing. Fails WP:NCORP. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 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) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Poetry Slam[edit]

Delhi Poetry Slam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage of the entity found in reliable sources. One source mere mentions it for a single time. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You're right; virtually all mentions of the Delhi Poetry Slam on search engines are either promotional or self-published. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. This is an essay/spam, not an article. Even if it were notable, which I doubt, a totally new article would have to be created. I found a few passing references in Google books, but zero in newspapers. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Zabedashvili[edit]

Georgi Zabedashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about footballer who made a single 45-minute appearance in a Belarusian Premier League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer in online English-, Belarusian- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed; delete. If what you're saying about the policy is correct, then I see no reason to keep this page up. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a question though: does a similar policy exist on Russian Wikipedia? For there exists a Russian language version of this article, that is not currently nominated for deletion. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the Russian-language Wikipedia has a different policy, but if they follow our presumption that playing in a fully-pro football league makes one notable, it's not surprising there is an article there. The issue is this person's footballing career has ended at age 24, and the presumption of notability ought to be backed up with significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; it is well established that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is comprehensively failed. GiantSnowman 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one appearance in one game does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Bondil[edit]

Nathalie Bondil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This person is likely notable, but this article has been nothing but a WP:SOAPBOX piece for years, heavily edited by a likely undisclosed paid editor (blocked on French Wikipedia for just such matters). WP:TNT is probably the only course now. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clean up the article. No need to delete it. It shouldn't take someone that long if they're invested in the subject. Heck, she was just awarded the Legion of Honour and she is a Knight of the Order of Montreal[18]. Just because the article is in poor shape, doesn't mean it should be nominated in AfD. It can easily be cleaned up and made into a shorter, consistent article. Sources that establish notability include:

• "Nathalie Bondil on redefining museums’ roles, positive impact of cultural diversity on creativity" from Global News
• "Montreal Museum of Fine Arts offers ‘a contemporary gaze’ at ancient objects in a new wing" from Art Newspaper
• "Nathalie Bondil reçoit la plus haute distinction française" from CBC
• "#GreatMTLer: Nathalie Bondil is an icon of Montreal’s art scene" from Global News
• "Nathalie Bondil dirige un musée en phase avec sa ville" from Le Journal de Montréal
• "Nathalie Bondil's artful adventure" from the Montreal Gazette
• "‘I don’t play to lose’ – how Nathalie Bondil threw open the doors of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" from The Globe and Mail
• "Doctors to prescribe museum visits to help patients 'escape from their own pain'" from CBC

And to establish WP:BASIC:

Her curated exhibitions have garnered international and national coverage[19][20][21][22][23] and many more

• "Montreal museum partners with doctors to 'prescribe' art" from BBC

There are many more. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Missvain: Have you read the nomination text, though? I am aware that the article topic is notable enough for Wikipedia, but I confer with the nominator's ideas, and consider it better to "blow it up and start over again" as suggested. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I do not support deleting articles in the effort to rewrite them. Missvain (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you are disagreeing with an official Wikipedia policy? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's not disagreeing with an official Wikipedia policy, actually. WP:TNT, also known as Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is just an essay. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup has an alternate view. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think wiki-notability is adequately established. While I have argued for the TNT approach in other deletion discussions, this article was easy enough to improve by quite a lot, just by cutting superfluous text. I don't believe that all-out deletion is necessary this time. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite.I think that User:MBAM-wiki and User:WikiMBAMNB and any employees/interns/associates of the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal (MBAM) should be restricted from editing this article. Bondil should be told that this is an article ABOUT her, based on what independent, reliable sources say about her. It is not her CV. If she wants her own website, should should get one herself. We're an encyclopedia, not a webshost. The article should then be blanked and rewritten from scratch. The English version has almost no sources, and one of them is from www.prnewswire.com, but the French version does have more, so we could look at using (some of) those. "La nouvelle directrice dévoile ses passions" by Mario Cloutier La Presse for example, and some primary sources for awards would be acceptable as well. Coverage is obviously mostly by La Presse, but there is coverage in other newspapers: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/article-architect-of-the-mmfas-popular-revolution/ for example. Vexations (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a fan of blow it up and start over. More like, take the initiative and trim back the superfluous stuff. She definitely meets notability guideline. We can stubify and rewrite. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP. Clean up the article because she meets our notability guideline. Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK, it's obvious that I made a mistake in nominating this, and I'm big enough to admit it. Nomination withdrawn and closing as speedy keep. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:51, 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. Sandstein 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Daily News[edit]

Pacific Daily News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails to establish notability of the subject, with no true WP:RS (I'm not sure if Guampedia counts or not, and am inclined to say no), and does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep., with a reminder that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The present state of any article is not evidence of lack of notability (see Wikipedia's first article on Michael Jackson.) The Guam Daily News was the territory's first civilian paper, with 70 years of history. A cursory web search reveals multiple reliable sources (and suggest more can be found), enough to create a balanced encyclopedia article, even if short.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} Note that the subject need not be the main focus of each source, only that the subject is covered in sufficient depth. Changes in ownership, editors, are covered in trade magazines like Editor & Publisher, and there are probably media reference books that compile and verify basic facts about this publication. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The paper of record for Guam owned by a company like Gannett meets WP:N by far, and this is definitely a WP:BEFORE failure. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article needs work, but I think it passes WP:NMEDIA. Animalparty found some good sources, and I found a few more through a Newspapers.com search that I used to expand the article a bit. The newspaper is notable as Guam's first locally published paper and its only extant daily. With sources available to write a verifiable article, it's a clear keep IMO. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:22, 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. Sandstein 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wereboar[edit]

Wereboar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional monster with no significant coverage in non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable minor monster._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All sources are primary or trivial, so its a failure of the WP:GNG. Wereboars are not unique to D&D, but none of their other appearances in other, non-related fiction are notable, either. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). BD2412 T 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - AFD is not a vote. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Either merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons), or delete outright. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to insufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only trivial appearance info without substance, merging would just add undue detail. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:33, 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 redirect to Krang. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technodrome[edit]

Technodrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this fictional object/location passes GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT + list of appearances in media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Redirect to Krang Heavy fancruft and FANDOM material. Mentioned in the Krang article, so it could probably redirect there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I don't think it needs a redirect. You would probably need to already be a turtles fan to be searching for that in that context. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep - The Technodrome is a majort part of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It used to be only in the Original Cartoon, the Archie Comics and the Fleetway Comics. After 2009, it has appeared in a lot of other TMNT media.J 1982 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That argument looks like WP:ILIKEIT. What is the evidence for notability? Are there reliable sources discussing the Technodrome anywhere? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe notability is irrelevant for Wikipedia. It would work on https://turtlepedia.fandom.com/wiki/Technodrome . But we are no Turtlepedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked at sources yet, but at worst this should be selective merge to Krang over deletion. Is there any doubt this is a reasonable search term? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The topic fails to establish notability. If it is possible, it can always be split out later. TTN (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Krang. While there are tons of results when searching for the term, there are really not any that discuss it in any way that goes beyond plot summary or listing its appearances in media. The best I could find was this academic paper that uses the Technodrome in the 1987 series as a talking point regarding energy sustainability and attitudes towards it during the time. Which is interesting, but can not support the article alone. As mentioned by Argento Surfer, though, there's no real doubt that its a reasonable search term, so a Redirect, at the very least, should be used. Any potential merging needed can be performed from the article history. Rorshacma (talk) 17:59, 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 keep. Notability does not seem to be an issue. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Johnson and Kayla Brady[edit]

Steve Johnson and Kayla Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another fictional character couple, this one fails to produce even a single reference. Fails NFICTION/GNG etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEXIST: A search on Google Books for Patch and Kayla shows the following RS with real-world info and academic analysis of this specific relationship:

• No End to Her: Soap Opera and the Female Subject
• Soap Fans: Pursuing Pleasure and Making Meaning in Everyday Life
• Soap Opera Mythology & Racial-ethnic Social Change
• Soap Opera Supercouples: The Great Romances of Daytime Drama
• Days of Our Lives: The True Story of One Family's Dream and the Untold History of Days of Our Lives
• It's Time for My Story: Soap Opera Sources, Structure, and Response. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are two additional sources about the couple to contribute to the discussion:

• Five Pivotal Steve & Kayla Moments Include Romance and Roadblocks
• The best, the worst, and the most absurd of 1988 Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by Toughpigs. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 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) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ali Rastgar[edit]

Imtiaz Ali Rastgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in coverage, written to promote the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable person in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG as none of the sourcing is significant coverage by reliable sources. Also per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL, WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:GNG. Absolutely run of the mill businessman and engineer. All but one award is non-competitive, and several seem to be vanity awards. This is written as a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 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 keep. Sandstein 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhmmad Ali Shaikh[edit]

Muhmmad Ali Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage found. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Störm (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The question here is whether Sindh Madressatul Islam University counts as enough of a "major academic institution" for its vice-chancellor (the head of the entire university in the system used in Pakistan and other former-British-rule states) to be notable under WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein Thanks for comment. No, I don't think so as it was granted university status in 2012. So, not a major university. Störm (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If it has university status where such is formally granted than yes it is major enough for its head to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sindh Madressatul Islam University is recognized by and affiliated with Higher Education Commission (Pakistan) – established in 1885. It has the founding father of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Hassan Ali Effendi and many other prominent Pakistani dignitaries among its alumni as an institution. It has over 100 year history behind its name. It was upgraded to university status from a college in 2012 but it is a highly-respected institution in Pakistan for historical reasons as well. For Muhammad Ali Shaikh to be a vice-chancellor there certainly makes him notable, in my view. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is vice chancellor of a university and the article is following Wikipedia notablity guideline as per WP:ACADEMIC. GargAvinash (talk) 05:56, 4 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) 20:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Dorothy[edit]

Project Dorothy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable film, the sources that were once in the article are a variation of outright fake sources and unreliable sources. A search reveals little else other than a repeatedly published press release[24][25] Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Bearian said, "upcoming" is WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 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 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. Sandstein 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GDP 3.0[edit]

GDP 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Economic indicator that was first proposed last month in an article in The Straits Times (unfortunately paywalled). There are 9 other references but obviously none of them discuss GDP 3.0 since they predate its introduction. This is not the first time that economists have proposed alternatives to GDP to correct its perceived flaws but very few of them have ever gotten the kind of attention that warrants an encyclopedia article. Will GDP 3.0 ever catch on as an indicator? I don't know but until it does, we don't need an article about it. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 14 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) 20:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Sharma[edit]

Palak Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not meet minimum notability guidelines per WP:NSPORT and has not competed in an international competition that is auto notable such as WP:NOLYMPICS. Article could eventually be re-created if this athletes reaches that level of competition. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete youth that does not meet our athletics notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Winning Group C of the 12 year old Asian girls diving championships doesn't meet any notability criteria at WP:NSPORT. The only sources are simply results and that fails to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nomination, and the two comments above. And geeze. Give the kid girl some privacy! —usernamekiran (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not following notablity guidline as of now per WP:ATHLETE. GargAvinash (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE Tayi Arajakate (talk) 08:20, 4 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. At least for now, since there doesn't yet seem to be agreement about where to merge to. Sandstein 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Insurgence[edit]

Pokémon Insurgence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fan game. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Should probably get a mention somewhere given the first reference in the article, but I and the WP:VG/SE otherwise agree the topic is not notable enough for a standalone page. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Can't find additional sources beyond that Kotaku (from RSes, that is). There should probably be a section in the main Pokemon VG Series article about fan made games, which have individually weak notability but are notable as a general class of game to be mentioned there. --Masem (t) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated at a later date once it gets more coverage besides just a couple articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only reliable coverage is the Kotaku article thus it fails WP:GNG. I would not be opposed to it being mentioned in a small fan-made section on Pokémon as mentioned by Masem.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - There could be a List of Pokémon fan games, or similar, I suppose, which would be a good location for a merge and redirect. I don't think the main Pokémon article would be a suitable location for specific fan games, (maybe a small sections in general though). If there isn't a specific merge location, then delete would be fine - clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG at this time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't even call for a separate list. The idea of Pokemon fan games is just barely notable, so a standalone is not a good idea (and will draw "hey, post my homefan fan project!" type entries). Plus, with the recent release of Temtem, a section in Pokémon (video game series) of Legacy, with "games inspired by Pokemon" and "Fan-made games" (Alongside Nintendo's avid takedown of such games, per [26]), there is a very comfy fit for all that there. --Masem (t) 01:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the relisting comment, I think it would be simpler to simply delete because there is not much in the article in question and there will only a small mention of it in the article it is being put in to.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:18, 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. Sandstein 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kottumala Aboobacker Musliyar[edit]

Kottumala Aboobacker Musliyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non Notable Person, Not enough for WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  10:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  10:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  10:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep bcs many sources in Google Books, let's check it. Authordom (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. It would be a good time now if you provide the sources/books. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, his son (Who does not have a page) received obituaries in a couple of Indian newspapers, but I cannot find anything better than a passing mention of this guy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. I also was unable to find any in-depth coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. He was never a grand mufti or equivalent. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 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. Sandstein 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinculum Group[edit]

Vinculum Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH & invariably fails WP:NCORP as well. A before only shows primary sources discussing them. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. It's some sort of software company, but the page is so badly written that I can't tell what it does that would make it notable. Ping me if you can fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are all routine business announcements or hastily rewritten press releases. There doesn't appear to be any original reporting on the company. I don't think the SBR Business Case Studies Awards are a notable award, and the article that mentions them is the Singapore Business Review (SBR) who is writing about their own event, hosted by the Charlton Media Group, the owner of the Singapore Business Review. Vexations (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom - per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capsugel[edit]

Capsugel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Coverage is limited to press releases, their rewrites (all WP:ROUTINE, trivial events) and mentions in passing. Prior AfD cited two English sources: [27] and [28]. Both are not an in-depth about the company, it's about their partnership with another company, and is from a very minor, local source (Newberry Observer, that's so minor that it doesn't even have a wiki article yet, just linked from List of newspapers in South Carolina...), this makes the sources invalid per WP:AUD. Other sources have rotten away except [29] which is a classic example of a rewritten press release and trivial coverage of routine operations per cited NORG policy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've revised the article some and introduced content from two published books, one of them a textbook where Capsugel is used as a case study for students. I also gutted the unsourced Facilities section and added only that information supported by one of the books I found to use as a source. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:13, 21 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 no consensus. As concerns the mass nomination, which is controversial. These articles can still be renominated individually. Sandstein 21:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juruá River (Rondônia)[edit]

Juruá River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a very small waterway in a sparsely populated area of Brazil. Maps (including the one cited in the article) are the only references to the river's existence that I have been able to find, and WP:NFEAT suggests that this is not sufficient to establish notability. Given that there is a highly significant Juruá River (also in Brazil) with its own article, I think that this little creek may be better covered by a hatnote there than by this stub. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 22:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 22:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on the feedback received thusfar, I'm expanding this proposal to include the following rivers which have a similar level of significance and article development. I have tried to review each with the care any article deserves (and perhaps especially because there are some articles in the List of rivers of Rondônia that are clearly worthy of retention), but I invite review. Generally I excluded any article with content beyond mention of a park/forest/preserve that overlaps with the watershed. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acangapiranga River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Alto Jamari River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Anari River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Barão de Melgaço River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Belém River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Branco River (Guaporé River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Branco River (Jaciparaná River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Branco River (Jamari River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Branco River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Cabixi River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Candeias River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Cantarinho River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Capitão Cardoso River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Colorado River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Comemoração River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Corumbiara River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Da Dúvida River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Das Garças River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Do Ouro River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Escondido River (Brazil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Guaiamã River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Ipixuna River (Purus River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Iquê River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Jaru River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Juruazinho River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Lacerda de Almeida River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Machadinho River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Mequéns River (Guaporé River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Mequéns River (São João River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Miriti River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Muqui River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Mutumparaná River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Novo River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Ouro Preto River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Palha River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Pimenta Bueno River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Preto River (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Preto de Candeias River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Preto do Crespo River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Quatro Cachoeiras River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rio Negro (Rondônia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rio Verde (Guaporé River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rio Verde (Jamari River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rolim de Moura River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Sotério River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

São Francisco River (Jaciparaná River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

São Francisco River (São Miguel River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

São João River (Ji-Paraná River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

São João River (Verde River) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Tanaru River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Tenente Marques River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Uimeerê River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Urupá River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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