< 17 March	19 March >

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Flanders (Catholic band)[edit]

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

The article has neither reliable nor independent sources. It doesn't seems to fullfill WP:BAND. SirEdimon (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially unsourced since creation and no evidence of notability in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eggishorn. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyre (band)[edit]

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

Article without a single reference. Doesn't seem to fulfill WP:BAND. SirEdimon (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence o notability under WP:BAND or GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Place, Wyoming[edit]

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

The Reed place, if this passage is talking about the same place, but at any rate, it's clearly just a ranch, and I find no hits to the contrary. Mangoe (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable community. This is some ways from Fort Laramie, likely not the same place. The same user made 36 of these shit-stubs, maybe just a couple of which at least have population in the vicinity on Google Maps. I redirected Mountain Home, Wyoming and Red Buttes, Wyoming to legitimate places in the same location. Reywas92^Talk 00:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I did a search to be sure and found nothing but mirrors of Wikipedia and Accuweather.com. If it exists, it's not much more than a run of the mill ranch. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subjugation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted by consensus as a dictionary definition in 2006. Recently restored from a redirect but still a dicdef for some reason labelled as a disambiguation page. Mccapra (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:DICTDEF. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see the harm in this dab page. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a disambiguation page; it is two dictionary definitions formatted with internal links. None of the pages linked require disambiguation from the others. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 of the 3 articles don't mention the term, and this page actively inhibits Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potterless[edit]

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

Podcast that fails WP:GNG. This article has served as little more than a mixture of web-boosting (there are several SPA accounts that have added promotional content) and a listener fan page. GPL93 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article doesn't indicate that the podcast has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and I haven't been able to find significant coverage elsewhere. There's a certain amount of coverage in student newspapers, but those almost always lack the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" we require of a reliable source. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article looks like WP:FANCRUFT, it needs to be trimmed down by removing unnecessary information. Primary sources should be removed. Other than that, the article is good enough to be kept. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding. I'm not looking for an argument in this AfD since it won't change anything, especially my views. So, I won't reply at all. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of response, I'd like to clarify that paring down the fancruft would still leave the issue that the only coverage by a reliable source is a short review in a local newspaper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've been unable to find additional sources to add to those in the article currently, and those are insufficient to support notability. Just a blog, a few school newspapers, a Rowling site, and the podcaster's school doing alumni mentions. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Schazjmd (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Consensus is clearly keep. No point prolonging discussion. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Wyoming[edit]

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

There isn't enough significant coverage to suggest the notability of this article. Everything I've seen is local news coverage. The only non-statistical information is the "Impact on sports" section, but that only details general impact that is standard across the US. The other stuff is just statistical information, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the nominator, I vote to keep this article simply based on the unprecedented development of this pandemic and sheer amount of coverage added to Wikipedia articles. There are articles for almost all 50 U.S. states. Just for the sake of organizing content across so many articles, I'd like to see this article kept and renominated in a month if coverage is still lacking. I understand others may not consider this a valid argument for keeping, and that's fine, that's just my honest gut reaction. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Digging through the news reports reveals more going on that just infection statistics. There has been, for example, specific government action. I have added this to the article. BD2412 T 22:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a new timeline item bearing a new confirmed case and given all timeline items a citation. Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at the very least, this should be redirected to another article, such as U.S. state and local government response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic#Wyoming per WP:ATD-R. TJMSmith (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is their anything I should add to make it useful? I already added a lot of information to it. I'm also trying to earn a barnstar, such as the COVID-19 Barnstar. Prairie Astronomer (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The US is, unfortunately, still just at the beginning of this fast-moving crisis. I'm sure there will be more content on this page coming soon. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep One of articles for almost all 50 U.S. states. there will be more content on this page coming soon. Nehaoua (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL though. I agree that there is a very high likelihood that this page will soon have enough sources to be expanded. However, until then, the article shouldn't be in the mainspace. I agree with TJMSmith that redirecting the page would be a good idea. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deleting it now and then creating it again in a week, probably after a deletion review, is just a waste of time. Anyway, it's already notable within Wyoming and there is no requirement for national or international news to report about things. --mfb (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, there is national coverage. I just added an article from the LA Times showcasing Wyoming as an example of a remote state experiencing the consequences of coronavirus. BD2412 T 13:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 NK Dravograd season[edit]

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

PROD removed, article fails WP:NSEASONS as club isn't playing in a Fully pro league. Also fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 13:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impera[edit]

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

A local company that only lasted two years and does not appear to have received significant coverage in secondary sources. Tdslk (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's a local bus company with 3 buses that only had one station before it went under and I can't find any reliable sources about it. So, it fails WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 20 March 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⁺⁺ 16:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Floating city. The history is still there if there's anything worth merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City at sea[edit]

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

Mostly a WP:DICDEF combined with WP:SYNTH. The saying "city at sea" can't be applied to any single concept, as shown with the disambiguation at Floating city. No need for two disambiguations referring to the same thing. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ocean colonization. Although different terms on the Floating city disambiguation page could cover the concept, this appears to be the best fit, as it proposes a specific instance of ocean colonization, and does not require a particular political association with that effort. BD2412 T 22:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion This topic is notable and is separate from the previously Floating City. But, I would be supportive of a merge with Ocean Colonization as previously suggested. ~ HAL 333 01:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floating city. Aside from a vague allusion to a "Glassco", which I have been unable to find due to the lack of details, the information in the article is completely unsourced. And, unsourced information should not be merged into other articles. I am fine with the term being used as a redirect, though, and the overall Floating city disambiguation seems to be the best place for people to get to what they are looking for. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Varma[edit]

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

Not notable person. Google search results are not enough to pass the WP:GNG Brihaspati (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 20:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German International[edit]

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

Possibly unnotable as well no sources HeartGlow30797 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The event is part of the Badminton World Federation's Future Series and part of the Badminton Europe Elite Circuit. Sources added, Afd was placed 3 minutes after creation of the article! --Florentyna (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. possibly notable badminton tournament per User:Florentyna said. It would be great to improved instead of deleted that article. Stvbastian (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appreciate there are two keeps but the voter above appears to be unsure whether to vote keep. AGF please, happy for early closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 20:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search for "B.A.B.B. GERMAN INTERNATIONAL" gives 1690 results, means tournament is of high international interest. Enough independent sources available, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Florentyna (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far from one of the major tournaments, but points from the tournament contribute towards rankings and there's enough coverage to merit keeping. Hzh (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand rugby union haka performances[edit]

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

I fail to see how a list of New Zealand haka performances is encyclopaedic, especially when they perform it at every game (barring exceptional circumstances)! – Pee Jay 19:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To use a blatant Americanism, I don't really have a dog in this fight. The only use I see in such a list is documenting which haka was used—and that's only relevant for matches after Kapa o Pango was introduced. My main contribution, IIRC, was noting the current process for determining which haks would be used for a given match. I also remember adding a couple of entries. In any event, I don't care one way or another whether it stays or goes. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While both versions of the haka are used prior to kick off of every All Black's game, to list which was used is purely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and also original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopaedic trivia. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft that is simply not needed. Schwede 66 22:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not needed here on the wiki as it encyclopaedic here. HawkAussie (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - [11][12][13] These three sources don't really demonstrate the importance. 2502renegate2502 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that the All Blacks perform the haka is notable and a (brief) overview should be in the main team article. This level of detail, however, is utterly trivial and not needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Hartung[edit]

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

Living individual; article created by author closely related to Maureen Hartung & Greg Hartung. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIOEsterasterase (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly the subject is actively engaged in the community, and an OAM is not trivial, but none-the-less quite common and does not count to notability on its own. Possible COI by editor/s is not grounds for deletion if the content is balanced, verifiable, and reliably referenced (BLP). However, there does not appear to be sufficient to meet GNG or any NSUBJECT. Still making up my mind and looking for further references. Aoziwe (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately. There is plenty of good quality material demonstrating that the subject is active in the community, for example this and this, but I cannot find anything about the subject. I would be happy to change my !vote if someone can find reasonable IRS about the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a teacher, she would fall under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Surely the Order of Australia established by Elizabeth II, would qualify as a highly prestigious award or honor at a national or international level? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One might think so. They are "nice to have", but the OAM is the lowest level of recognition and they are given out by the hundred / thousand ... Aoziwe (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've added 2 IRS to a small addition to the page (found via ProQuest database search of Aust and NZ newspapers). Maureen has certainly been cited for comment at least a dozen times by The Canberra Times in her capacity as a school principal and advocate of independent schools funding policy changes. I'm not sure these additions are sufficient to make the page meet GNG however and am inclined to agree with Aoziwe. Cabrils (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of physical records held by the New Zealand national rugby team[edit]

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

This is practically the very definition of WP:CRUFT. Identifying the tallest, shortest, heaviest and lightest All Blacks of all time could be useful, but in an article listing the team's overall records and not a top 10 of each! – Pee Jay 19:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS WP:INDISCRIMINATE Reywas92^Talk 20:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a New Zealander myself, and a fan of the All Blacks, this article however is trivial cruft and fails WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. I can't see any reason why anyone would need to know who the 20th heaviest player in All Blacks history is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless cruft. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm intrigued how long it took before this listcruft got put up for AfD. Schwede 66 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not needed here on the wiki. HawkAussie (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN and not necessary to have such a list article per nom. Abishe (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Schwarz[edit]

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

Relevance not clear from article. Personal webpage mentioned links back to Wikipedia article. Otherwise a lot of "name dropping" - linking a WP article to firms of team members does not really add informational value. Suggestion for a strong overhaul or deletion. --SenorRaul (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a person of relevance as she was in 30 under 30 for Forbes. Very successful social entrepreneur and she developed her on unique NGO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8540:FB2:983E:F8E2:658A:97BF (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - multiply reposted paid for spam; see Draft:Paula Schwarz. MER-C 19:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is an odd AFD, on an article with an odd history. It was created by a single-purpose account at Paula Natascha Schwarz, where I found it while cleaning up bare URLs. No sign of her middle name in any of the references or anywhere I could see online, so I moved it to Paula Schwarz, which as User:MER-C points out was multiply-reposted spam. I cleared out the unsourced claims and spammy geck, and added a few sources. Then another single-purpose account comes along 10 hours later, and first prods it [14] then nominates it for AFD [15] on the weakest and vaguest of grounds, praising it with faint damns, and suggesting a keep and "overhaul" in the nomination, as if they're hoping the AFD will be rejected. The coverage I can find of her is sparse, so I'm hovering between "weak keep" and "weak delete". I added these in February:

very short interview in DE magazine Deutschland [16]
Irish Times article, the one bit of substantial coverage I could find: [17]
she was in the "Forbes 30 Under 30" in 2016 [18], with a very short accompanying profile

Just had another search online, and found:

this article on the project she leads in Forbes
another short interview in Capital (German magazine)
this paywalled article in Suddeutsche Zeitung, no idea what's in that
this 23 minute radio piece on local radio Südwestrundfunk.

These might tick the box for multiple sources, but it doesn't quite add up to significant, in-depth coverage. Capewearer (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spammers are known to nominate other spammers' articles for deletion. They can even nominate their own articles for deletion to immunise them against community action. MER-C 18:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Irish Times is a RS and there is WP:SIGCOV in TechCrunch and Mashable plus Forbes' 30 Under 30 is a significant award. It adds up to GNG compliance. AFD is not cleanup also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject lacks the level of in-depth, independent coverage needed to show they meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. While the subject has accrued coverage in credible sources, much of this information is tainted with copious amounts of WP:PRIMARY information; this is important to note as sources need to be intellectually independent of the subject to work towards establishing notability—the Irish Times article for example, is barely 2 pages long and nearly half is text quoting Schwarz herself. Other sources offer only sparse information (i.e in passing mentions) about Schwarz herself, instead focusing on the companies Schwarz is is affiliated with. In addition, the fact that most of said companies are construed as startups makes me feel that the subject fails WP:SUSTAINED and poses a WP:TOOSOON issue. As for the awards the subject has won, none seem to be particularly notable; even the Forbes 30 under 30 award is niche, as it is not the generic award but rather the 30 Under 30 - Europe - Social Entrepreneurs 2016. In addition to all this, the suspicion that this article was created for undisclosed paid edits - while not an outright reason for deletion - implies this article violates WP:NOTADVOCACY. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thanks to Eggishorn for finding those additional references, but the Mashable article only mentions her in passing; the TechCrunch reference that I can find [19], like most of what I've managed to find about her online, is about the StartupBoat project, rather than about her. And what I'd thought was the one substantial source, the Irish Times article, SamHolt6 is right: it's mostly Schwarz talking about herself. Capewearer (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to COI issues the subject does not appear to be the focal point of the coverage mentioned above. Additionally, the Forbes 30 under 30 isn't a particularly good indicator of notability as around a thousand people are named 30 under 30. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sator Press[edit]

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

All of the sources, except one, are either written by the founder or simply reviews of books published by the publisher. The only exception is an interview with the founder in a magazine (Entropy), which - I believe - does not qualify as an independent source. There are some blogs but it appears that no unconnected writers or organizations have written about the company. A connection to notable people is mentioned through a literary journal, but notability can not be inherited. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was going to vote delete at first but did a Google News search and found bunch of other sources, including vice.com and LA Times, which I have added. I believe the additional sources make this notable enough to keep. Page still needs some work with formatting references, etc. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did a Google search and failed to find a "bunch of other sources." The only ones where the articles listed above by Expertwikiguy. Looking through them only one, the LA Times article, seems to just barely pass the notability guidelines. The vice.com article is 99% about the Ken Baumann and a book he write. I think the publisher is only mentioned once in passing. So, I'm going with delete because one LA Times article that's border line trivial coverage doesn't cut it unfortunately. I'm 100% sure this article was created for advertising purposes anyway. As the person that created it also created the Ken Baumann article and they are the users onlyish edits. Outside of adding references to the publisher in other articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The LA Times article fails WP:ORGIND as it is based entirely on an interview with Ken Baumann and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG / NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Association for Cryptologic Research. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems[edit]

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

borderline promo. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into List of cryptography conferences. Dwaro (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to the sponsor, International Association for Cryptologic Research. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree, merge to International Association for Cryptologic Research. Dwaro (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep in compliance with MOS:DABMENTION, with no prejudice against incidental deletion if the extant article is moved to the base name and the mention hatnoted from there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Moshava[edit]

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

A disambiguisation page, which only lists a single “camp Moshava” with an article. The disambiguisation page seems more of a cover for a directory than an attempt to distinguish between various pages. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an appropriate disambiguation page per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:D It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. This page has only one link and does not aide in navigation. The nominator rightly states that a disambiguation page is not a directory with no links. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid dab page per WP:NOTCLEANUP. I fixed the first sentence and removed the non-notable list items. StonyBrook (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have eliminated some items and left two items...one of the items is a redirect, so not quite sure a Disamb page is needed. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the dab page further, so that I believe it is now in compliance with WP:DABMENTION, where the existing redirect was discarded in favor of a section pipe. This dab page serves a purpose to differentiate these 2 camps for the reader, which are entirely unrelated except in name. While Afd did bring about these improvements, it should not have been the vehicle to achieve this, and I think the nomination should be speedily closed as keep. Note: It seems pretty clear that no primary topic exists for this term, so a hatnote would be inappropriate. StonyBrook (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate disambiguation page per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the second disambiguation doesn't count for inclusion on a disambiguation page IMO because it isn't either "the main topic of an article" or "a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic" as the disambiguation article says the purpose of them is. Therefore, if the disambiguation criteria are followed this should be deleted due to being a single article disambiguation page. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find that rule in WP:D; in any event, Camp Moshava is definitely a subtopic of Habonim Dror - in fact it probably was a full article that was previously deleted. In MOS:DABPIPING an example that is given is Switch (disambiguation), where one of the entries is for the non-blue-linked song Switch listed on The Scream (album), where the article does not discuss the song at all. StonyBrook (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted from the first paragraph after where Disambiguation is in bold. Importantly it says the subtopic should be "covered" by the article. "either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic." I wouldn't call a title without any details being "covered." There's still notability guidelines for what should or shouldn't be included in an article and the notability of red links or their inclusion in lists is a whole different subject. If it did have an article at one point but it was deleted due to lack of notability that speaks even more to why it shouldn't be included in a disambiguation page. Especially if it's the only other thing being linked in it and is being used as a reason to keep the disambiguation. Which is also why I don't think Switch (disambiguation) is a relevant example. As its already an established disambiguation page with many things listed in on it and the articles existence doesn't hinge on the one red link. Btw, the nutshell for WP:D says disambiguation is necessary so that readers can "quickly navigate to the article they seek." It's highly unlikely that if someone types in Camp Moshava that they are seeking Habonim Dror. Whereas, there's a pretty good chance that they are looking for at least of the things in the Switch (disambiguation) article. Even if one of those things might be a red link. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. But to repeat, I see nothing in that quote that prohibits the second entry, which is indeed a subtopic just as much as the song is. To answer your other points, it is not a just red link, the entry is a properly formatted blue link to Habonim Dror. I don't see why this org's Camp Moshava is any less of a searchable entry; the fact that no article exists is irrelevant because the important information is in the target article. I know of no policy that prevents a dab page for having only 2 entries, even if one is only a secondary link (see Caffeine Dream for one example of many). StonyBrook (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a subtopic, my point was its not "covered" in the other article. Which is why I put so much on the part about there not being any details about it. Which WP:D says is the point in a disambiguation. It's not just to create a list of quasi fake forwards about things that aren't notable otherwise. The Caffeine Dream disambiguation article is a perfect example of that. Not only are individual songs rarely notable on their, for their own article or even being mentioned, but Caffeine Dream isn't even mentioned in the article the disambiguation goes to. So it's pretty much worthless. Except as a way to mention something that doesn't meet notability standards and wouldn't be otherwise. This isn't an encyclopedia of everything. That includes every song by an artist or every youth camp. That standard applies as much to a disambiguation as it does to normal articles. Using other articles other articles as examples of how we should do things is a really bad standard anyway. We could easily find similar articles to any AfD here and use it as an excuse to vote keep. The only thing that's relevant is the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean about Caffeine Dream not being mentioned in the articles listed, they clearly are. As to your point about notability, WP:DABMENTION disagrees with you because it requires just that, only a mention. StonyBrook (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in the Scream (band) article. Maybe it is on the other one, but I have serious doubts that article is notable (same for the band). So, it's not really relevant. Not that it would be anyway. Since like I said, it's not really relevant because you can compare any AfD to any other article as a way to cherry pick that it should be kept. Also, WP:DABMENTION isn't relevant either since it's a style guide and not an editing guideline. Those are completely different things. Style guides don't have anything to do with notability and that's what we care about here. Not how to write something properly. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree. I think it is unlikely that the style guide would be encouraging policy violations. Note, Caffeine Dream is not mentioned in Scream (band), it is mentioned in the album link (Fumble (album). Whatever. StonyBrook (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lightburst. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Ye-in[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The subject has been only part of band Lovelyz, otherwise she does not seems to be notable. It is a kind of WP:TOOSOON and the content solely relies upon a single source. Abishe (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no signs of individual notability outside of the group Evaders99 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Association for Cryptologic Research. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real World Crypto[edit]

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

Events/forums/conferences covering super narrow topic. It is not of broad interest and I don't believe that it passes WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: research presented at the conference was publicized in several publications of broad interest. These have been added to the article. Dwaro (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
they're all non-substantial coverage like "In a paper presented at this week’s Real World Crypto Symposium".... Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Association for Cryptologic Research Dwaro (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford Tavares[edit]

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

Being a professional doesn't make someone inherently notable and there's no Google News results for this person. Despite having place in some academic papers, there does not appear to be evidence of GENERAL notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News coverage is largely irrelevant for academics; we have WP:PROF instead. His heavily cited publications (nine with over 100 citations on Google Scholar [20]) give him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. And his election as an IACR Fellow also gives him a pass of #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per evaluation of @David Eppstein:. Dwaro (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalida Inayat Noor[edit]

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

Non-notable mathematician, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nine publications with over 100 citations each [21] should be easily enough for WP:PROF#C1, especially in mathematics. I don't think the FIMA is selective enough for #C3, and I don't know enough about the Pride of Performance award to know whether it is a significant-enough national award for #C2, but it doesn't matter; only one criterion is needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. Needs comparatively minor editing for encyclopedic tone, but that's not a problem for deletion to solve. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Muhammad[edit]

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

No coverage on his death. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a Muhammad Aslam Noor who is heavily cited in variational inequalities, and initially I thought that this was the same person as the nominated subject. But I think I was mistaken, as the name order is different and M.A.Noor has published after Noor M.'s death. I have deleted my mistaken keep opinion. Trying to search Google scholar only for the correct mathematical Noor Muhammad is difficult but he appears to not be heavily cited enough for WP:PROF#C1. We have one death notice from ICTP, but the other two PakMS newsletter sources appear to be permanently offline, leaving us without enough to form the basis of an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Naqvi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poor index, fails WP:NPROF. He now works at Goldman Sachs. Störm (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet academic notability or GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPROF. Associate professors and lecturers almost never pass the prof test. Thousands of physics students fell into the trap of string theory in the 1990s. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note The GS profile in the opening post is not for the subject. Here is a link to the subject's profile on inSPIRE. H-index of 22 is decent. Neutral on deletion. Nominator does deserve some trouting for clearly not looking at the previous AfD. T R 19:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Citations make a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1 but this is a high-citation field and I am swayed by his having left academia at a relatively junior level. The article doesn't make any case for post-academic notability and has nothing interesting to say about his earlier research accomplishments, being merely a bare listing of posts he held, so I don't see a lot of value in keeping this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudry Mohammad Aslam[edit]

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

An unsourced article, no coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. I'm open to changing my opinion if reliable sources turn up; the description in the article makes him appear to be the sort of person who should be notable. Note that the book "Transformation of the Indian Armed Forces 2025" by Maj Gen A K Lal (the first hit on Google books) is not a reliable source, as it refers back to Wikipedia for its information (WP:CIRCULAR). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Valid notability arguments were raised in the discussion and not refuted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Zaman[edit]

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

Low index, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 546, 504, 161, 116, 105, 67, 44, 41, ... I think that's enough for WP:PROF#C1, especially for a mathematician. I'm more interested in the high end of the citation count (the ones with over 100 citations) and in this case the h-index doesn't really show that. I think this record is a lot stronger than someone with the same h-index=12 but with peaks in the low double digits. I deleted some unsourced content from the article and added another source, so I don't think we have a big problem with verifiability or sourcing for content. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NPROF C1 case made by David Eppstein. Weak, as I notice that all his high citation papers are coauthored with George Marsaglia, so it's a bit difficult to separate his impact from Marsaglia's. His highly cited articles all appear to be about random number generation, and it might be worth adding a sentence to the article along these lines. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Keepers above for now. Soon I'll try to improve it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farzana Aslam[edit]

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

h-index of 1, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She appears to be an associate professor and associate head of school at Coventry, and Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. None of those is quite enough for notability, and her citation record also looks unpromising. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet any of the standards of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 Chesterfield F.C. season[edit]

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

Prod removed, Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If sources are found to give a possible GNG argument then please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. I'm not convinced that these articles are of much particular value even for clubs in fully-pro leagues, so the last thing we need is to have more for clubs further down the pyramid. Number 5 7 17:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only noticed 1 possible source (2 articles) in my search [22] [23], but both sources only include passing information about the season. The current sources in the article (self-published and otherwise) only work for verifying information, and therefore fall WP:GNG. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 09:54, 23 March 2020

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson A. Asamoah[edit]

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

This article on a non notable actor was PRODed but the PROD was removed, so bringing here for a consensus view. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find anything about the subject on "google news", so it seems that the article fails WP:GNG. I don't know if he's at all notable in regard to his non-acting work (if anyone has a view on that, I'll take it onboard), but he doesn't appear to pass WP:NACTOR either. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTRESUME. Virtually no reliable sources are on the page. He;s had no major roles. Producers are totally run of the mill - we delete at least two a week. This fan page could have been forgiven in 2006, but in 2020, everybody around the globe knows we are a charity, not a resume service. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a jack of all trades, notable in none. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable subject who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TWH Bus & Coach[edit]

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

Unremarkable closed ROTM company with history to suit. Sources all are from local media/blog sites so can't really be verified. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. lacks third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shame none of the history can be sourced as it could've continued to make a great article, Unfortunately there's just nothing on Google and even the ceased trading sentence is back up by a Blogspot source ..... Nothing on its hisory or their ceasing of trading, Great shame but it is what it is. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems like there are legitimate counterarguments for every delete argument (it's unencyclopedic and trivial vs. it's encyclopedic, it's morally repugnant vs. WP:NOTCENSORED, it's a mess full of original research and poorly sourced stuff vs. it can be properly sourced, is being cleaned up and doesn't have BLP concerns, similar list was deleted vs. a list of deaths may be notable and the other list deletion is up for deletion review, it's not notable vs. meets WP:LISTN and somewhat more vaguely is indiscriminate vs. is not indiscriminate and is too large and too small vs. not deletion reason and can't be both at once) and it looks from the headcount 4-5 delete (depending on whether one counts AndyTheGrump's argument as a delete or not) vs 11 keep that the counterarguments have gained more sway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish flu cases[edit]

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

This article is a mess. It simultaneously is unjustifiably large and ludicrously small. The present list of deaths includes many people for whom we have no evidence they actually belong. The list itself is way under sourced. Assertions about death should be directly sourced here. Some of them are sourced on the individual bio pages, some are baldly asserted there, and a few I have removed were not even asserted at all on the respective bio pages. On the other hand the list of survivors is ludicrously short. If this disease infected 27% of the living people of the time, the list of those affected should be much, much longer. Why is it not? Probably because getting influenza, even when it is a very bad strain is not actually defining to those who survive. On the other hand estimates of the number who died from Spanish influenza range from 17 million to 100 million. The sourcing on individual causes of death is not there, and with lots of people who are borderline notable, like one time players in the 1904 olympics and one game cricket players, the study of primary sources to determine death and publication of that in secondary sources is not happening. Even if we limited this to death, it is not clear that even at the time it was always known if Spanish influenza was causing deaths. So I do not think we have any justification for creating this list, we do not have good enough sourcing to do so, and it is not defining enough to justify. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

’’’delete’’’. For the same reasons as my list of coronavirus 2p19/20 article delete vote. Utterly stupid article. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I just move large blocks of people with disease X from main articles to subarticles. People love writing these people with disease X articles. We maybe need guidelines around them more than just deleting one of thousands of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's too large.... It's too small... Nom makes no sense and as no valid reason has been presented for deletion (or at least not one that makes sense) it must be kept. That's not even counting the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in the nom - I fail to see what the 1904 Olympics or cricket players have anything to do with this. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert's comments about it being both "unjustifiably large and ludicrously small" make perfect sense to me. It is 'too large' because it contains individuals that shouldn't be on it, and it is 'too small' because it stands no chance whatsoever of ever including all those who should be on it, if 'death by Spanish influenza' (or just catching it) is a valid reason in the first place to compile a list of 'notables' from among the 25% of the world population that caught it, and the 17 to 100 million who died of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To add to what Johnpacklambert says above, as I noted elsewhere [24] one of my concerns regarding this list is that it includes individuals as Spanish flu fatalities where the relevant Wikipedia biography merely had a (sourced or unsourced) statement that they died 'during' the epidemic (see e.g. Rose Cleveland). No doubt some died as a result of it, but it is pure WP:OR to assume so. And there is currently no realistic mechanism to prevent this sort of WP:OR once again rendering the list entirely useless as a source of useful information, even if it is cleaned up now. Bad data (or data which cannot be relied on not to be bad) is often worse than no data at all. While this list obviously doesn't have the WP:BLP concerns that some other 'disease' lists do, it still concerns me that it has been presented in this manner. In my opinion nothing less than a complete and careful review of all existing entries, a strict requirement for proper direct sourcing, and some means to ensure that new entries to the list are properly monitored would rectify the situation. And even if the list consists only of individuals that can be reliably sourced, it is going to be of little merit, given the almost random way that individuals arrive on it. Even ignoring the clearly-inconsistent way that Wikipedia 'notability' is applied the list can only ever contain 'notable' individuals for whom a biography has been written (an immediate source of unintentional) bias), where a source for death by (or survival of) Spanish flu can be cited, and where someone adds the individual to the list (I am quite sure there must be biographies on Wikipedia that have properly-sourced deaths due to the epidemic in them that aren't on the list, since the person writing the biography may be entirely unaware of its existence). I am not going to !vote delete here, since my opinion on Wikipedia's attitudes toward biographical lists (and categories) is clearly at odds with the way many (most?) others think, but I would suggest that it might serve the interests of readers better if there were less proliferation of unreliable, inconsistent and often just plain wrong lists that can mislead more than they inform. And Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the benefit of the readers, rather than to occupy those who apparently seem to sometimes think that the utility of a list is determined by the number of entries on it rather than the verifiability and meaningfulness of its content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adendum to nomination Geting influenza is not a defining moment for people in most cases. Which is why we have so few people listed on the infected list, even though it is thought that a quarter of the world population got sick. For most of the people involved this sickness was not defining to them. So this is for people who lived a list of people by something not defining to them, a list of mere trivia, which we should not have. For those who died, the fact as noted above that we have people such as Rose Cleveland who we lack a direct source saying they died from it shows that this list suffers from major verifiability issues. Basically this list often boils down to unsourced statements. This is very different than the Polio list where every entry is sourced, sometimes multiple times. I would suggest that we better source the entry of Boyd K. Packer, but the biography of him written by Lucille C. Tate (that is Boyd K. Packer: A Watchman on a Tower) discusses it, we also have this quote "As a boy of five, Boyd contracted polio. His illness was diagnosed at the time as pneumonia, and he recovered with no significantly apparent aftereffects. But the polio would come back to be a challenge later in life." from the biography of him at the webpage of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that illustrates a little that it was broadly impactful, he suffered post-polio syndrome in his latter life in the 2000s from something he caught in 1929, were there people suffering residula effects of Spanish influenza in the 1990s, if not than it is clearly less life altering for those who survived than Polio. The most famous polio sufferer, Franklin D. Roosevelt may not have actually had polio, despite being so diagnosed, and that is fully discussed with sources in the article. We have nothing like that here, and I do not think the impact level of the disease involved would ever justify having that here, so we should just delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; getting the flu is not a defining event and such a list is inherently unencylopedic. I am also concerned by the concerns of original research by AndyTheGrump, and difficulty confirming if people actually died of Spanish flu or perhaps a similar flu-like illness. b uidhe 21:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, claiming that the article is a mess is not an argument for deletion. This is a WP:POINTY nom due to a spillover from a failed attempt to delete List of people with coronavirus disease 2019. Abductive (reasoning) 23:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That article actually was deleted (though I suspect a DRV is coming) but the closer acknowledged consensus was a list of deaths would be notable. I suggest the delete !voters, including nom, consider whether trimming this to a list of deaths is a valid WP:ATD. Smartyllama (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That ignores how many issues there are with the decisions on who to put on the death list. It also falsely assumes that individual level disease analysis was good enough in 1918-1920 to accurately say who was and was not dying of the Spanish flu. It also ignores the fact or nearly a decade of being a horribly written article. It is not splii over per se, it is a result of realizing just how bad this list is after having been pointed to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, 'individual level disease analysis' is a fundamental problem with such a list. Neither the media of the time nor more recent biographers may have generally been in a position to state unequivocally that someone died 'of' the disease. At the same time, it might have been a reasonable assumption to make about many who died at that time, of an otherwise unexplained illness. Which is why such sources tend to use phrases like "died during the pandemic". The sources didn't know for sure, and the better ones made their lack of knowledge evident. Lesser sources may have been more inclined to make assumptions based on probabilities. Even where sources exist, their reliability as a source for what they are asserting has to be sufficiently open to doubt to make this a list of people reported to have been victims of the pandemic. And being reported may be down to the source in question being more willing to make assumptions than a more careful source might. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such a list will be either massively incomplete or else unmanageably large and impossible to adequately verify (or as nom suggests, both at the same time). Agricolae (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but name change to notable deaths.... keep per WP:NLIST After 100 years we likely have a complete list. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Both, in a sense~~ - This will honestly depend on who closes the AfD and may or may not lead to other needed reviews. "Spanish flu cases" is part of the Category:Lists of people by medical condition, which includes 38 or 39 other articles pending other discussions. As the name suggests, those are all lists that range from articles needing some work like List of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer which has only six sources on the article due to relying on links to the people listed for sourcing and this list with just 26 sources overall and 19 for the people themselves to the lists for polio survivors, people who are HIV-positive, people with brain tumors, and people with epilepsy which are all Featured lists. My opinion is that this list is better than the list for pancreatic cancer due to being better sourced and for attempting to include some additional info with the lede and the "In utero effects" section, but this list is kinda weak overall and will need some rebuilding to get it up to the standards of the nominator and of the Wiki. As for how other AfDs have gone for related lists: List of people with bipolar disorder (Kept - 2005), List of people with post-traumatic stress disorder (Deleted - 2007), List of people on the autistic spectrum (Keep - 2007, Deleted - 2016), List of people with epilepsy (Speedy keep - 2007) (Deletion review - Speedy endorse - 2007), List of famous people who caught yellow fever (No consensus - 2016), List of people with bipolar disorder (Keep - 2019), List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (Delete - 2020, Pending Discussion). From these discussions, we get the following questions: Is there enough proof with the listed citations that these people had been infected with "Spanish flu"? Does this article fail Wikipedia:Attribution (and if so, likely WP:BLP as well) due to a reliance on links to the listed people and does that mean the article should be deleted, does it mean that the content should be removed, or is it acceptable sourcing? Should this be turned into two categories (one for those who had it and a more restrictive one for those who also died from it) per the advantages listed at WP:AOAC and that the articles of the people should handle their own sourcing or should it be retained as a list due to already being limited to those who are notable and for the potential problems that such a category would have for WP:BLP? Should this list, in-part or as a whole, be kept and listed for a merger to the "Spanish flu" article? I believe that this is all of the questions that really need answering. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Personally) - I think a few thing do need more work, but I have been able to restore 10 listings with sources and added sources for 5 others before all of John Pack Lambert's edits occurred. Personally, I do not believe it is an inappropriate list, but rather, it was lower in quality than almost all of the other lists. It does need more work, but I believe that the concerns of the nominator that the article was "It simultaneously is unjustifiably large and ludicrously small." have been somewhat fixed, especially with the almost doubling of sources and the current lack of listings without verifiable sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are no BLP concerns here, nor is this a list of ephemeral minor cases. A sourced list related to an extremely important event in medical history. This is fairly obviously all of the sudden being dragged here in the aftermath of the rather dubiously closed rather dubious list of coronavirus cases ended in Delete at AfD. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That the Spanish flu is medically notable is beyond doubt, but to me 'list of people famous for other reasons who happened to contract (or die of) flu during the Spanish flu pandemic' does not inherit this medical notability. Agricolae (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This nomination isn't WP:POINTy, it's improving the encyclopedia. I agree with DJ and Goku's points that this list is just one among many, many inappropriate lists we have on Wikipedia. And there are many more of these past AFDs than Goku listed, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with hepatitis C (kept 2006), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HIV-positive people (kept 2011). "Lists of people by disease" should all be deleted as morally repugnant. But aside from that, the nom and Andy make excellent points why this particular list of Spanish flu deaths from 100 years ago is trivial, indiscriminate, and fundamentally cannot comply with WP:V or WP:NOR or WP:DUE–the WP:CCPOL trifecta. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I have trimmed it down to only those sourced from here, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That gives us 18 deaths and 23 sickened. I am not sure even all of those are sourced to what would count as a reliable source. I would think if we want this list to have any meaning we should include for those who survived a summary of how it impacted them, all with adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is certainly not a high quality article. That being said, it serves a purpose and I don't find an alternative for it elsewhere. The author initiated a project to organize the information of notable Spanish flu victims and survivors. A perfect place for this project is a public information sharing platform such as Wikipedia. The hope is that other authors will continue growing the list and eliminate entries that are incorrect or are not supported by evidence. Instead of deleting it, I recommend improving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KdawsonWiki (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list passes WP:LISTN – see the Smithsonian, for example. Information about that pandemic was suppressed at the time in many countries because of the Fisrt World War but now, Wikipedia is not censored. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cited policy deals with offensive content, not poor-quality content. Agricolae (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nay-sayers seem animated by such considerations, per the assertion above that such lists "should all be deleted as morally repugnant". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should stick to what animates us, rather than speculating about what animates others. For example, I am animated by wanting to get rid of ill-conceived pages that are little better than a cross-categorization and that could just as easily, and more soundly, be handled by a Category. Agricolae (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Agricolae, there's WP:CLN and WP:NOTDUPE, which make it very clear that categories are not superior to lists and that we don't delete one to favour the other. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Showing how many notable people died or were otherwise affected by this is quite encyclopedic. Obviously only those with their own Wikipedia articles are listed, its like that with all such lists. There are references to verify the information. Dream Focus 04:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see that the list falls under WP:NOT; it's not indiscriminate; there are no BLP issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: largely per k.e.coffman and Andrew Davidson.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When Presidents and other top executives get a disease, it is taken in a symbolic way relating to the nation. Many people use it as a proxy to talk about feelings that are more personal. For example, when Eisenhower had a heart attack, that helped spur the low-fat movement. His case was symbolically used as a stand-in for people whose relatives or friends had similar conditions. When Lincoln was murdered, his funeral (including the processional train across multiple states) was also a proxy funeral, for many whose loved ones had recently died by violence. An article like this helps illuminate this and more importantly, gives clues to students in need of report and paper ideas. For example, they might look at one of the cases in here and find historical local paper accounts of it to see how their community reacted to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this is not a notable topic on its own as it is not adequately covered in reliable sources. – bradv🍁 20:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicative calculus[edit]

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

I have collapsed the rationale for AfD nomination by Createangelos, and the discussion with Smithpith, who is !voting keep, because these posts are very long, and very technical. It follows that, without collapsing, non-specialists must scroll several screens before finding the core discussion based on Wikipedia rules. D.Lazard (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for AfD nomination by Createangelos, and discussion with Smithpith, who is !voting keep
The justification for the existence of this Wikipedia article is articles which refer to it, such as Florack, Luc; Van Assen, Hans (2011). "Multiplicative Calculus in Biomedical Image Analysis". Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision. 42: 64–75. doi:10.1007/s10851-011-0275-1. That article, on the second page, says It is not difficult to show that ... ln f(x) = (ln f)'(x) This can be taken as the definition of . This is indeed a correct formula for the action of the operator d/dx when y=f(x) if we use u=ln(y) as a coordinate. But even here it is written in idiosyncratic notation. The normal, and very very old, way to write the action of d/dx on f(x) coming from its action on ln(f(x)) is to write write ln(d/dx)(f). That is to say, differentiation by x is pulled back via the function ln before you apply it to f. There are many references to many standard calculus texts which explain this, and physicists' notion of how vector fields (which they call 'covariant tensors of rank one') 'tranform' when you change variable. Such as page 28 of the book 'The very basic theory of tensors.' The theory of manifolds is even more general, and describes tangent fields without needing to choose any* coordinate. An existing Wikipedia article vector field already describes this, "This representation of a vector field depends on the coordinate system, and there is a well-defined transformation law in passing from one coordinate system to the other." If someone wants to improve Wikipedia's treatment of the subject, someone can insert the formula there where it is needed. The article of Florak and Van Assen does exist, but despite the title, the article does not, and could not, make any substantial use of a notion that 'multiplicative calculus' is any different than ordinary calculus. Because ordinary calculus already subsumes 'multiplicative calculus.' Except in a few textbooks, the real line which occurs as the domain of single variable functions does not have any operation of multiplication or addition. It has a smooth structure only. The distinction between 'multipicative' versus 'additive' calculus is nonexistent except with reference to expository texts which make the simplifying assumption that the actual real number line happens to be the domain of single-variable functions; and the publication in reference [4] could not possibly be notable. Just because a research article is published and refers to something does not make that thing notable. Wikipedia does not have an encyclopaedic command of all strains of astrology, for example. The notion that there is such a separate subject as 'multiplicative calculus' which is any different than ordinary calculus would rest on the idea that whatever variable y one is tempted to use, it is always better (or different) to use ln(y) instead. If I can give an analogy, suppose I say, addition is good, but some numbers have no predecessor, so I am going to define "augmented addition" which is defined by saying xy + 1 = (x+1) + (y+1) Then we see xy = x+y+1 and we can think of this as adding the successors. Well, I've only conjugated ordinary addition by the successor function. In the case of 'multiplicative calculus' which recommends using log(y) in place of y, the process could of course be repeated, one could say, it is always better to use log(log(y)) and so-on. It is like calling functions 'logarithmic functions' which are of the form ln o f and insisting that you need a whole separate theory about 'logarithmic functions.' Seriously, it is like the theory of elements of groups which are preceded by the inverse of some other element. It is not a subject. And if articles were published by referring in a complimentary way to the subject, it is just either sad or a corrupt use of the refereeing process. Not that the originators of 'multiplicative calculus' would be to blame, but just vulnerable. Sadly, also, in situations like this, there is the possibility that the only reason such references were ever published is because an article only needs one referee to be accepted, and editors are not always conversant with the subjects of articles in their journals. As a postscript, the notion that 'multiplicative calculus' is 'scale invariant' is prejudiced by a particular notion of what should be the group of scale transformations. This whole subject was clarified beginning with work of Cartan, described here for instance http://www-math.mit.edu/~helgason/Paper45.pdf, and the algebra of vector-fields invariant under a group of transformations is an existing and very old subject, including symmetries that are not required to commute, and which have various physical interpetations. Createangelos (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] 17 March 2020 Dear Createangelos, The article “Multiplicative calculus” should not be deleted. Multiplicative calculus Is different from classical calculus. It provides alternatives to classical calculus in the same way, for example, that the geometric average provides alternatives to the arithmetic average. As clearly indicated by the many items in the Reception section, multiplicative calculus and non-Newtonian calculus have been well-received by researchers, and have been applied in a wide variety of subjects by applied mathematicians, scientists, and engineers worldwide. Please read these items carefully. As indicated in the History section, multiplicative calculus is a “widely recognized theory with applications.” From: Smithpith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithpith (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] It's great that we have an expert on board. Can you please give some clarification for what this sentence ought to mean, "Infinitely many non-Newtonian calculi are multiplicative." Then infinitely many of them are additive? Shouldn't the additive ones be the basis for readers to understand the theory (in the same way that there shouldn't only be an article about geometric means)? The multiplicative ones come from these by the substitution which you well know, even if not all engineers/economists do. In clarifying what are the infinity of additive non-Newtonian calculus theories: should non-Newtonian really be defined here to mean nothing besides that there are inverse notions of differentiation and integration? So by this article any pair of bijections like adding 1 and subtracting 1 comprise a non-Newtonian theory of calculus? Why does the history section leave out Heaviside calculus, Laplace transforms, etc? Is this an alternative history? Does it include Stochastic calculus? Also, it is strangely npov to have a 'Reception' section in a Math article talking about all the people who like and approve of the subject. Also, it just isn't right to have a whole article about how d/dx commutes with addition while {1\over x}d/dx commutes with scalar multiplication, and how much people love learning about that, and ignore the general issue of symmetry and differentiation whose history predates anything in the article. There might be material that can be rescued, but serious errors would have to be fixed. In the section 'Relation to classical calculus' you say that A and B are canonically isomorphic with R as an ordered field. This would require a restriction on the cardinality of A and B. The sentence "one can define the following (and other) concepts of the -calculus: the -limit of f at an argument a, f is *-continuous at a, f" has no content since the definitions are not given. Why have a huge long article about how important some definition is, and how well-received it is, and how the whole history of it is due to you and your collaborators, without including that important definition in the article? You say that you use the 'natural operations, natural orderings and natural topologies' on A and B. If they are uniquely naturally isomorphic with R you can identify them with R, and then when represented as 'subsets' of R but not subfields, this chooses two embeddings of the underlying set of R into R. Then you take the embeddings to be log and exp as a roundabout way of describing the substitution y=e^u? Anyway, you really have to address why the content is notable enough to direct Wikipedia readers to pages upon pages of very recent testimonials about the `reception' of why {1\over x}d/dx is invariant under scalar multiplication -- a special case of Cartan's type of analysis which would be un-known only to the weakest applied researchers -- and has a history section which credits authors from the 1960's til 2019 for all of `non-Newtonian' calculus, ignoring all earlier authors including Sohus Lie, Elie Cartan, Killing, Klein, Dieudonne, and even Cartan who is the person who actually did originate the substitution y=e^u which this article features, but decades earlier. This Stack Exchange comment by user conifold describes some related history although it is more general than what we're talking about here https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3558/how-did-the-exponential-map-of-riemannian-geometry-get-its-name . Createangelos (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for AfD nomination by Createangelos, and discussion with Smithpith, who is !voting keep

The justification for the existence of this Wikipedia article is articles which refer to it, such as Florack, Luc; Van Assen, Hans (2011). "Multiplicative Calculus in Biomedical Image Analysis". Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision. 42: 64–75. doi:10.1007/s10851-011-0275-1. That article, on the second page, says

It is not difficult to show that ...  ln f*(x) = (ln f)'(x)

This can be taken as the definition of *. This is indeed a correct formula for the action of the operator d/dx when y=f(x) if we use u=ln(y) as a coordinate. But even here it is written in idiosyncratic notation. The normal, and very very old, way to write the action of d/dx on f(x) coming from its action on ln(f(x)) is to write write ln*(d/dx)(f). That is to say, differentiation by x is pulled back via the function ln before you apply it to f. There are many references to many standard calculus texts which explain this, and physicists' notion of how vector fields (which they call 'covariant tensors of rank one') 'tranform' when you change variable. Such as page 28 of the book 'The very basic theory of tensors.' The theory of manifolds is even more general, and describes tangent fields without needing to choose *any* coordinate.

An existing Wikipedia article vector field already describes this, "This representation of a vector field depends on the coordinate system, and there is a well-defined transformation law in passing from one coordinate system to the other." If someone wants to improve Wikipedia's treatment of the subject, someone can insert the formula there where it is needed.

The article of Florak and Van Assen does exist, but despite the title, the article does not, and could not, make any substantial use of a notion that 'multiplicative calculus' is any different than ordinary calculus. Because ordinary calculus already subsumes 'multiplicative calculus.' Except in a few textbooks, the real line which occurs as the domain of single variable functions does not have any operation of multiplication *or* addition. It has a smooth structure only. The distinction between 'multipicative' versus 'additive' calculus is nonexistent except with reference to expository texts which make the simplifying assumption that the actual real *number line* happens to be the domain of single-variable functions; and the publication in reference [4] could not possibly be notable. Just because a research article is published and refers to something does not make that thing notable. Wikipedia does not have an encyclopaedic command of all strains of astrology, for example.

The notion that there is such a separate subject as 'multiplicative calculus' which is any different than ordinary calculus would rest on the idea that *whatever* variable y one is tempted to use, it is always better (or different) to use ln(y) instead.

If I can give an analogy, suppose I say, addition is good, but some numbers have no predecessor, so I am going to define "augmented addition" which is defined by saying x*y + 1 = (x+1) + (y+1) Then we see x*y = x+y+1 and we can think of this as adding the successors. Well, I've only conjugated ordinary addition by the successor function.

In the case of 'multiplicative calculus' which recommends using log(y) in place of y, the process could of course be repeated, one could say, it is always better to use log(log(y)) and so-on. It is like calling functions 'logarithmic functions' which are of the form ln o f and insisting that you need a whole separate theory about 'logarithmic functions.' Seriously, it is like the theory of elements of groups which are preceded by the inverse of some other element. It is not a subject. And if articles were published by referring in a complimentary way to the subject, it is just either sad or a corrupt use of the refereeing process. Not that the originators of 'multiplicative calculus' would be to blame, but just vulnerable.

Sadly, also, in situations like this, there is the possibility that the only reason such references were ever published is because an article only needs one referee to be accepted, and editors are not always conversant with the subjects of articles in their journals.

As a postscript, the notion that 'multiplicative calculus' is 'scale invariant' is prejudiced by a particular notion of what should be the group of scale transformations. This whole subject was clarified beginning with work of Cartan, described here for instance http://www-math.mit.edu/~helgason/Paper45.pdf, and the algebra of vector-fields invariant under a group of transformations is an existing and very old subject, including symmetries that are not required to commute, and which have various physical interpetations. Createangelos (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17 March 2020

Dear Createangelos,

The article “Multiplicative calculus” should not be deleted.

Multiplicative calculus Is different from classical calculus. It provides alternatives to classical calculus in the same way, for example, that the geometric average provides alternatives to the arithmetic average.

As clearly indicated by the many items in the Reception section, multiplicative calculus and non-Newtonian calculus have been well-received by researchers, and have been applied in a wide variety of subjects by applied mathematicians, scientists, and engineers worldwide. Please read these items carefully.

As indicated in the History section, multiplicative calculus is a “widely recognized theory with applications.”

From: Smithpith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithpith (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that we have an expert on board. Can you please give some clarification for what this sentence ought to mean, "Infinitely many non-Newtonian calculi are multiplicative." Then infinitely many of them are additive? Shouldn't the additive ones be the basis for readers to understand the theory (in the same way that there shouldn't *only* be an article about geometric means)? The multiplicative ones come from these by the substitution which you well know, even if not all engineers/economists do. In clarifying what are the infinity of additive non-Newtonian calculus theories: should non-Newtonian really be defined here to mean nothing besides that there are inverse notions of differentiation and integration? So by this article any pair of bijections like adding 1 and subtracting 1 comprise a non-Newtonian theory of calculus? Why does the history section leave out Heaviside calculus, Laplace transforms, etc? Is this an alternative history? Does it include Stochastic calculus? Also, it is strangely npov to have a 'Reception' section in a Math article talking about all the people who like and approve of the subject. Also, it just isn't right to have a whole article about how d/dx commutes with addition while {1\over x}d/dx commutes with scalar multiplication, and how much people love learning about that, and ignore the general issue of symmetry and differentiation whose history predates anything in the article.

There might be material that can be rescued, but serious errors would have to be fixed. In the section 'Relation to classical calculus' you say that A and B are canonically isomorphic with R as an ordered field. This would require a restriction on the cardinality of A and B. The sentence "one can define the following (and other) concepts of the *-calculus: the *-limit of f at an argument a, f is *-continuous at a, f" has no content since the definitions are not given. Why have a huge long article about how important some definition is, and how well-received it is, and how the whole history of it is due to you and your collaborators, without including that important definition in the article? You say that you use the 'natural operations, natural orderings and natural topologies' on A and B. If they are uniquely naturally isomorphic with R you can identify them with R, and then when represented as 'subsets' of R but not subfields, this chooses two embeddings of the underlying set of R into R. Then you take the embeddings to be log and exp as a roundabout way of describing the substitution y=e^u?

Anyway, you really have to address why the content is notable enough to direct Wikipedia readers to pages upon pages of very recent testimonials about the `reception' of why {1\over x}d/dx is invariant under scalar multiplication -- a special case of Cartan's type of analysis which would be un-known only to the weakest applied researchers -- and has a history section which credits authors from the 1960's til 2019 for all of `non-Newtonian' calculus, ignoring all earlier authors including Sohus Lie, Elie Cartan, Killing, Klein, Dieudonne, and even Cartan who is the person who actually did originate the substitution y=e^u which this article features, but decades earlier. This Stack Exchange comment by user conifold describes some related history although it is more general than what we're talking about here https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3558/how-did-the-exponential-map-of-riemannian-geometry-get-its-name .

Createangelos (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the above discussion is misplaced and should appear in article talk page. This page must be devoted to discuss whether the nominated article satisfies Wikipedia rules that all Wikipedia articles must satisfy. So, please, restrict this discussion to this aspect. D.Lazard (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite of a large number of references, this article is not reliably sourced (see WP:Reliable sources). All references are WP:Primary sources and most of them are not really published. Although, this is an article of mathematical analysis, I have not found in the reference list any article that has been published in a non-predatory journal that uses to publish articles in this area. The lack of WP: Secondary sources strongly suggests that the article does not satisfy the WP:Notability criteria. In fact, multiplicative calculus is a WP:Fringe theory that is not recognized in the main stream of mathematics. Moreover, this is a trivial theory in the following sense. The exponential and the logarithm define an isomorphism between the additive group of the reals and the multiplicative group of positive reals. The multiplicative calculus is simply the transfer through this isomorphism of some concepts of calculus that use the additive structure of the reals. It follows that every theorem of multiplicative calculus is a corollary of the corresponding theorem of usual calculus (this is what I mean by a trivial theory). D.Lazard (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a subject like this, we really need to see a textbook on the subject; articles on math journals cannot be adequate. I myself can propose new kind of calculus and might even succeed to excite some other people with it (anyone can dream!). But we need a widetly-used "textbook" to appear before we can cover that in Wikipedia. Some research-level topics may not have textbooks, but, as far as I can tell, the subject of this article does not seem to be a research topic. -- Taku (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sourcing is plentiful but poor. Many citations are to marginal references: a conference speech, a passing mention in a tech-press story about something else, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, etc. It is hard to shake the impression that a very simple and not too dramatic idea is being drastically overhyped. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a frequent reinvention. Review MR 2356052 makes clear that this is just a disguised version of the standard calculus. Review MR2724186 points out that it is the same as the "Non-Newtonian calculus" of a 1972 book by that title, which MR didn't even bother to review. MR also didn't bother to review doi:10.1080/10511979908965937 in a mathematics education journal, reinventing the same wheel (nor did zbMATH review it). MR2864779 is a negative review of an attempt to show that this formalism is useful for differential equations; the reviewer disagrees. I might find it acceptable to have an article that points out that exp/log can be used to translate everything in the usual calculus into this form, and that reviews the history of reinvention of this not-very-deep concept, but that's not what we have here. Instead we have a lot of dancing around the point that this is all trivial, more or less as the first review I linked states. I think WP:TNT applies: it might be possible to have something here, but not this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having read and reflected further, I don't think this article stands up. As David Eppstein points out, there's a lot of wheel reinvention going on here, and it's not even a very interesting wheel. The heaps of forgettable publications applying this trick don't add up to significance; we need something like review articles or textbooks that do the work of summarizing and synthesizing to demonstrate that it really is a trick worth writing about. I concur that WP:TNT applies. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article is of note, but requires very significant cleanup, which I am willing to do. I believe the article overestimates the use and notability of Non-Newtonian Calculus due to bias. The user Smithpith is likely personally connected to the author of several books on NNC, as a quick google search shows smithpith is the publicly available email of M. Grossman. However, I believe that due to the interest in the research community in the most recent decade, the subject is of note. The subject is not notable enough note to merit a page of nearly this length or grandeur, but it has been used in educational and research contexts enough to merit an article. For instance, I propose deleting the sections on the General Theory of Non-Newtonian Calculus and pruning the Reception section. This is because I agree with the majority of previous commenters who believe that NNC is not significant enough to be notable to Wikipedia as its own mathematical branch, and I believe that the Reception page is repetitive and oversized to the point of illegibility. I wrote the majority of the History section, which I hope to improve, and plan to clean up the rest of the article. This should be in accordance with guidance on WP:TNT as XOR'easter suggests.MathTrain (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(comment reply) Further to MathTrain's concerns, note that there is a subject, or at least a Wikipedia category, known as 'Non-Newtonian calculus' I'm not sure how to link to it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-Newtonian_calculus and it includes Black Scholes, compound interest, alternative calculi, fractal derivative, geometric brownian motion, geometric mean, etc. The list does include 'multiplicative calculus' as one of the pages, so deleting this article outright might make a broken link there. My reason for nominating deletion has to do with having two names for the same thing (calculus) necessitating constant disambiguation (like saying, let's explain that in non-Peano arithmetic when we say '3' we really ought to always mean '4'). It should be OK to delete that page from 'Non Newtonian Calculus' because it is the one which is isomorphic to ordinary calculus while none of the others are, with the exception of compound interest, which is part of ordinary/multiplicative calculus. I had a look at some of Newton's books, he does often refer to 'translations', perhaps because he's writing about celestial objects. If there were going to be a history of the relation between non-Newton calculus and 'multiplicative calculus' it can't just skip over the years 1700 to 1966. The stack exchange article which gives the history of 2 interpretations of exponential maps really just shows that in the prior history, the notion of transforming through an exponential map to preserve invariance under symmetries goes back in two different threads. The history ends before 1965 though, with the work of Ehresmann from 1935 until 1960. User smithpith is a well-known and well-admired mathematician who is a neutral and objective Wikipedia editor, however the History section is not due to that editor, it is incorrect history, it is not mathematics and my reason for nominating the article for deletion is that it is powerful marketing. Just the fact that it can be subsumed into a small part of the earlier history wouldn't be an argument for deletion. Often, to introduce students into a subject, a thinker like smithpith will make an easy example. I can think for instance of how questions about group algebras were a way of easing students into von Neumann algebras, or how quivers, developed by Gabriel after his work on categories, is a way of easing students into his earlier work. Or how toric geometry is a way of easing students into projective geometry. And no-one can or should insist that 'you can't understand group algebras until you understand von Neumann algebras' etc. But when it comes to describing the conceptual history, it just would be, to be frank, dishonest, in any such situation, to pretend that easy examples made to attract students to an earlier interesting theory represent a dawning of a whole new mathematical epoch. Because it is one thing to be careful not to intimidate students, but it is another thing entirely to mislead them, and this especially when, in the case of some publishers, the motive having to do with marketing gets very close to tendentious journalism and business.Createangelos (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(comment reply) In reply to Createalgelos: I am not entirely sure, but I think we may be in disagreement on the overall subject of the page. The linked page Non-Newtonian Calculus is not the subject to which I believe the article refers. I believe the intent of the article is to describe the particular type of multiplicative calculus which Grossman and Katz introduced in 1967, not the general topic. This holds both before and after the edits I propose on my sandbox page (I am editing this as a project for a university class). I completely agree that the history of ideas like this does not begin in the 1960s, but the particular formalism which is being replicated in current research articles does appear to begin at this time. It should not be presented as the start of a new math epoch, but literature generally attributes the creation of this specific topic to Grossman and Katz in the 1960s. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022247X07003824?via%3Dihub is an example of this historical attribution. Is there an older example of this formalism not mentioned in the history section? If not, I don't believe that documenting the history starting in the 1960s constitutes marketing. MathTrain (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment reply) Where you say "I am editing this as a project for a university class," this a very important thing to say, and if you'd like to collaborate on something we can figure out a way we can get in contact. Your course grade should not be connected with success at rescuing a Wikipedia article which violates WP:OR . It would be a conflict of interest for you. I do see that you deleted loads of nonsense references already and show good understanding. Whoever assigned that method of assessing your project made a mistake, though because how are you going to get any credit if you now decide to support [WP:TNT] including sacrificing your own work? What teacher assigned you a project to edit Wikipedia? My own greatest successes in Wikipedia were times I decided to admit total defeat. How are you going to get credit for doing the right thing in the event you decided on your own that your deletions didn't go far enough, and to support [WP:TNT]? When you ask, "Is there an older example of this formalism not mentioned in the History section," did you have a look at that Stack Exchange page yet? Maybe I'm still under the influence of the way the article currently includes so much pretense about non-Newtonian things, still, I'd be interested in your thoughts about it, and we can work our some way to get into direct contact for that. The article wasn't wrong to imply that Newton was a bit obsessed with translations in Euclidean space, and that Stack Exchange article mentions Albert Einstein as one of the main influences in relation to starting to get away from that limitation. I do see that you are now proposing starting a totally different article which is essentially a disambiguation, to sort out the confusion people might have fallen into because of how you have to compose all your functions with log or not, depending on whether you define variables to be multiplicative or additive. This confusion would have started in the 1960's maybe, I do understand that. If you have been a victim of getting confused by the preponderance of conflicting notations and motivations in Wikipedia I'm really sorry, and that is what we are both trying to deal with here. I notice in your work on it, that the existing article about 800 meters mentions that it is a bit shorter than a half-mile, but there is no separate article about the 'half mile' because it isn't notable enough difference to have two separate articles. The situation here is where there is no difference at all. Anyway, do you or your teachers know what to do after a WP:TNT has occurred? How to pick up the pieces in an ethical and considerate way? Maybe that would be a better school project, more advanced, if it weren't for the continuing conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia for assessment. As one final comment, if someone says, "The sound in this microphone increased by 3 decibels in one second, what is the rate of increase," there already is the ambiguity between energy (impedance times the square of RMS voltage), the log base 10, the log base e, or the number of decibels (ten times the log base 10). Or you might mean the RMS voltage. Note that the change in db is not affected by impedance which adds a constant to 10 times the log of the square of the RMS voltage. But if you also say you might have meant either the additive or multiplicative rate of increase of any of these four coordinates, that is replacing a 4-fold ambiguity with an 8-fold amgibuity. Crucially, derivatives are the ratio between two differentials, and differentials have exactly ONE unambiguous definition in Mathematics. Here is that definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_of_a_function#Definition. They do not depend on units of measurement, for example, because they replace the concept of units of measurement coming from coordinatizations in physics or engineering. This is my true reason for having nominated the article for deletion, and for supporting WP:TNT most sincerely. The reason I can't have one Wikipedia article about de^x and another about e^xdx isn't some political point about hurting people's feelings, or some power play. It is because de^x and e^xdx are equal and that means, they aren't two different things, they are one and the same, they have the relation of equality, and an article which writes about one is already written about the other. And practically speaking, it implies that people shouldn't be required to publish their microphone article twice because they trust Wikipedia, and Wikipedia made them start to worry if decibels are non-Newtonian, and you aren't allowed to say "three decibles per second" without getting some sort of permission from a referee and adding a reference to multiplicative variable theory. Createangelos (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment reply) To clarify the conflict of interest, I would like to clarify that my assessment is not at all dependent on my getting this article published or saved on Wikipedia. I am only being assessed on content in my sandbox page, so any motivation to edit the actual page content is my own. On another note, I like your point about notability via the notion of equality (such as the example with d(e^x) and e^xdx). I completely agree with you on the lack of notability of the concept of NNC as its own mathematical entity, since conceptually it may be mildly different (if at all) from existing ideas of variable transforms, but not nearly enough to merit a separate article (akin to the half-mile versus 800m concept). The reason I think this page is notable is not that the mathematical concept is important, but that NNC as a field has seen a wide increase in publications referring to it as such. While I may not think that the concept is a "separate field" so much as an equivalent formalism of an existing field, that does not seem to be the point of view of published literature. The preexistence of this article, which seems preoccupied with the formalism associated with NNC, supports this point of view. I then find there to be a conflict between two important philosophies of editing: 1) all published literature on the subject, of which there is plenty, seems to support that this particular formalism (NNC) is a notable mathematical concept; 2) I believe (I used to be unsure, but I am more convinced now by your arguments) the concept is not an inherently notable one mathematically. The difference here is the social impact versus mathematical impact of the idea. While there is little-to-no inherent mathematical impact of NNC, there is a social impact. Perhaps the social impact is due to it making concepts of change-of-coordinates more intuitive for some people. I believe that social impact makes the idea, which has lots of published literature on it, notable. Ideally, I might like to say in the article that the social impact itself is notable, and to add the clarification that the math concept is equivalent to transformation of variables. The problem is that no published literature I can find actually supports that idea. There are reddit threads, this talk page, and other informal sources which support that idea, but I am yet to find a reliable review which supports adding that claim. This is likely precisely BECAUSE NNC is socially notable enough to have a whole lot of fringe literature on it, but not quite socially notable enough to have published literature which refutes its inherent mathematical importance. I can come to that claim on my own, but publishing it on Wikipedia would amount to a violation of WP:OR. How do we then balance being unbiased in terms of what the most reliable dozens of sources about a published topic say, versus what seems to be actually true but has no actual published work? If sources say something is notable and mathematically important, but it is actually not, yet there are no actual sources saying that it is not, what do we write in the wiki article about it? MathTrain (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment reply) When you write, "1) all published literature on the subject, of which there is plenty, seems to support that this particular formalism (NNC) is a notable mathematical concept; 2) I believe (I used to be unsure, but I am more convinced now by your arguments) the concept is not an inherently notable one mathematically." On point 1) it is a certainty that these articles and others are right to say that NNC is hugely notable, it includes General Relativity, Stochastic calculus &c&c, and it represents the development of ideas beyond thinking that the universe is a Euclidean space with particular God-given translations. On point 2) that Stack Exchange thread said that it was because of NNC that mathematicians (finishing with Ehresmann in 1960) developed calculus the way we know it now. There is no shortage of articles saying NNC is notable. No one would advocate excising post-Newton calculus from Wikipedia. When you write, "...the math concept is equivalent to transformation of variables. The problem is that no published literature I can find actually supports that idea. There are reddit threads, this talk page, and other informal sources which support that idea," you're referring to the idea that the people like me and the other editors who've written here --- who say that fringe articles/discussions which say that NNC was an idea invented in 1965 comprising a requirement to separate variables into 'multiplicative' and 'additive' mis-characterize NNC -- do not write and submit research articles backing up what we say. This is because of a notion of infinite regress. I do understand, then, that this makes it hard to modify the existing article to include reliable references for how bad it is. That is why the discussion is a deletion discussion, and at some stage an issue of trust arises somewhere. Someone like you could pick up the pieces, and fill-in the missing gaps in the existing 'differentials' article and the existing 'vector-fields' article. About your comment about the social event, it is as you seem to suggest the situation that any biased or misleading Wikipedia article is socially notable because of the confusion it can cause; maybe an issue is to ask, is it only notable to people who read that type of article or who edit Wikipedia? Is it only socially notable 'in house'? Might it be more notable if the phenomenon affects other subjects like medicine or law, maybe? With deletion we'd get a wider perspective and you're really free to expand your school project. Createangelos (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment reply) To clarify some word-usage here, what I referred to when I said NNC is ALWAYS in reference to the fringe ideas created in 1967. That's just a terminology issue: I have only seen the term non-Newtonian calculus used to refer to that specific fringe theory, never to anything else such as General Relativity which you are referencing. I see how the term could be used as such, but that's not how I have been using it. This is certainly making a good case for a disambiguation page in my opinion, would you agree? Furthermore, I do stand by the claim that NNC (the fringe theory from the 1960s) is notable in and of itself, not as a mathematical topic, but as a place for confusion and also a place where a lot of academics have written a lot of work. Would it be reasonable to propose the creation of a disambiguation page which includes both the important parts of NNC (general relativity etc) and a link to a short page on the fringe theory? I think the short page could link to the fringe work in order to clarify confusion and just show what it is. My only question if we did that is how to deal with the question of infinite regress. The work by its nature is making bold claims, but there are no official sources to refute those claims. However, maybe the page could be worded to minimize advertising. Thoughts? MathTrain (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment reply) Just to say that you're making a lot of sense. As for the current deletion discussion, when you say 'a place where a lot of academics have written a lot of work,' there are specific agreements in Wikipedia for what comprises notable work, I myself am not an expert in these. They have to be secondary sources, the publications have to ones that have already been agreed to be reliable. Some of these restrictions must be related to that infinite regress concept. No-one wants to silence anything, but if editing articles about scholarship is changed into being done according to popularity, then you're advocating changing Wikipedia into Reddit. I am not a high-up editor, and I do not know how the deletion decision will be made, nor do I understand why you voted 'keep' given your clear understanding of the issues. I have a sad feeling that this feels like a negotiation, which isn't what I wanted at all. The 'differentials' article has weaknesses, the 'vector-fields' article has weaknesses, and none of the historical discussion from Stack Exchange is correctly represented. It is a dismal situation and I feel like you want to accept how bad it is so that in return we won't delete your article. Wouldn't it be an acceptable school project to become a leader in sorting out the deeper weaknesses in other articles which attempt, but fail, to explain how Calculus changed after 1700, and articles in other subjects like this one under consideration where there is a pocket of popular agreement about some topic which ignores the scholarship.Createangelos (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(comment reply) I certainly wouldn't prefer to accept how bad it is just so the article won't be deleted; I would like to clarify again that this is my own work at this point – the school project has actually been handed in already and I'm only graded on what happens on my sandbox page, not here. Within the class of course there are certain word limits/requirements etc, but that has nothing to do with what I want to do here on the mainspace. I don't want anybody to not delete my article because they think that impacts my grade (it doesn't); when I mentioned that I was doing it for a class, I just meant please to not write or change anything in my sandbox page. In regards to why I voted keep, I think you've reasonably changed my mind. I would propose instead creating a disambiguation article from scratch on NNC, and including in it a link to a short page on the fringe topic which this page is currently devoted to. I am familiar with the rules of using secondary sources and what comprises notable work, and I think that there are plenty of sources already in the article (most are not good, but some are useful) which make this topic notable enough to merit such an article. I questioned myself whether some of them qualified as secondary sources, but given the definitions Wikipedia sets out I believe they are. I am not familiar, however, with the actual organization of Wikipedia when it comes to creating a disambiguation page, properly linking, whether the first step is to rename or to delete this page, etc. Furthermore, if I wanted to do that, would I change my vote above to Delete, or would I write a second vote? MathTrain (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment Reply) Hey, kid, you're getting over my head already in this, I told you that I'm not a Wikipedia expert so I will leave it up to you. [WP:BB] Createangelos (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is a redirect to Product integral (and then starting with a clean sheet for a section on Multiplicative Calculus) an option perhaps? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The multiplicative integral is known, in modern mathematics, as the Haar measure on the multiplicative group of positive integers. IMO, Product integral needs to be completely rewritten for taking the moden knowledge into account, and for clarifying the relation of its content with measure theory. D.Lazard (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) - The9Man ^(Talk) 05:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Donald Wilson[edit]

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

~~No significant coverage or secondary sources for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep : Enough references added to establish the notability. Withdrawing the nomination. - The9Man ^(Talk) 05:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The creator of The Whistler indeed meets WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals #3. May meet GNG when proper BEFORE is completed. I will add sources to the article to spell it out. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sources and info added. I need to check a few more radio books and then newspaper archives. For the old time radio newbies: The Whistler was a long-running, popular radio show that was also adapted for films and television. J. Donald Wilson created the character. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We clearly have enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Embers Fall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I could not find any RS coverage about this band. Biscuit3413 (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the band's album and single as per davidwr from the last nomination.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All 3 - fails GNG. WP should not be used to promote the music of non-notable musicians/music. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone new to Wikipedia reading this: See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All 3 including the page history of Fleeting Moments- fails WP:Notability and other notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cierny Sery[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG. The article has no citations and two external links, one is dead and other clearly not RS. A Google search revealed nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - fails WP:NOTE. William Harristalk 00:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V; some of the anecdotal information online refers to it as altdeutsche hütehund; we already have Old German herding dogs which probably needs review. I might have suggested a MERGE had I seen any RS cited. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with some sources. The website of the Slovenska Federácia Kynológov is archived here, but I can find no mention there of this breed (my Slovakian is a little rusty, so that may just be user error). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Malaysia. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Klang Valley[edit]

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

Unlike other similar articles like 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sabah, this one isn't for a specific country or state within a country, but for a largely undefined region (the Klang Valley article calls it "There is no official designation of the boundaries that make up Klang Valley"). It is not feasible or useful to have these articles for areas that aren't clearly defined and which overlap with other, clearly delineated areas (like the states of Malaysia). Fram (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kuala Lumpur - I feel this article could be a little broader with the new name. Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dear god people, don't create nearly-empty pages just for the sake of it! Don't WP:SPLIT unless there's actually enough content to form a new subarticle! The Sabah and Sarawak articles aren't needed distinctly from 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Malaysia yet either! Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram:, name changed and that article will be expand sooner. angys (Talk Talk) 11:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC) @Interstellarity: Infact cases in Malaysia mostly do not separate two states as one entity. And KL is small so there are so many people who cross the border everday, plus KL once belongs to Selangor. So separate it is not a good idea. angys (Talk Talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Malaysia. There is no distinctive information here except for the numbers of active cases of coronavirus in two Malaysian states -- 161 and 113. This doesn't need to be a separate article when the main article about the pandemic in the country can cover statistics like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now supporting a redirect only, with no merge. The numbers I mentioned above have not been updated since this article was created, even though this is a topic which one might expect to be updated on a regular basis. Since the article is presumably outdated already, the information should not be merged. By contrast, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Malaysia#Cases by states is already being updated daily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Malaysia. No substantial content, besides many states in Malaysia are heavily interlinked (in terms of human movement, transportation and so many things). Chongkian (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its now been moved to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya but is this title an arbitrary selection or does it reflect a natural area? We could have 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk but that would be a bit arbitrary. I agree that the old title shouldn't have an article since there's no clear inclusion criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify + redirect. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lao Division 1[edit]

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

Message left at talk page: Review under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process. Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I reviewed the article. In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. I don't see any such coverage or sourcing in the article, nor any alternative in the sports notability guideline that would even temporarily bypass that requirement. I have nominated the article for deletion which means that the community will decide the result. North8000 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football in Laos. Giant Snowman 19:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in Laos. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a second division of football in a relatively big asian country. Deleting it would be just another instance of systemic bias. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hang on - we don't have notability guidelines for leagues, but we do for teams. And teams that play in top national cup tournaments are generally considered notable. This is the second highest tier of club football in a nation where football is very popular, and the league is national, whose teams play in national cups. How could we be in a situation where clubs in a league are generally considered notable, but the league isn't? Is there really no coverage of this league, that would achieve GNG? Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody finds sources that satisfy wp:GNG it could be recreated.North8000 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How User:North8000 isn't that WP:Systemic Bias? Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that objectively applying Wikipedia's standards represents avoidance of bias. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then how can you delete this User:North8000? The standard in WP:FOOTYN is that a team is notable if it plays in national cups - and teams in this (the second highest level of soccer) in Laos play in the national cup. How could we possibly be in a situation where a team is notable, but the league they primarily play in isn't? Sure, sources would help - and they are probably out there somewhere ... though I don't even know where to start looking. Nfitz (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First you should understand that I am just trying to do my job properly which ended up with putting it here for others to decide, and possibly expressing an opinion as (merely) one of those people. The relevant guidelines here WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). The item which you are linking to is not a policy or a guideline, it is an essay. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does reflect where the community is on individual teams now, for some time. It's unheard of for a league to not be notable if it's teams are. It's unheard of for the second-highest league of a nation where football is a very popular sport to not be notable. This would not be happening if the nation was English-speaking with an accessible media. Please withdraw this biased nomination now. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing a clear consensus for keep, redirect or delete here. There seems to be some sourcing in the article which could support GNG, but needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: We do have general notability guidelines for leagues (see WP:FOOTYN), and based on those this league is notable since its members are eligible for national cup competitions. Mightytotems (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is neither a policy or a guideline, it is a subpage at project football. One other note, "General Notability Guideline" does have a specific meaning in Wikipedia which is WP:GNG rather than referring to a subpage at project football. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football in Laos and draftify article. Article in its current form does not meet GNG (see below). I couldn't find better sources myself. Someone that speaks Lao might be able to find better sources, in which case they can add these sources and submit the article for review. --MrClog (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-06/23/c_136390084.htm	State-owned Chinese press company. Likely that they are reliable when it comes to foreign sports.	I'm a bit on the fence here, but I feel like merely listing how teams can be promoted from Division 1 to the top league is not SIGCOV.	✘ No
https://www.scorebing.com/league/2738	? Couldn't find much information to determine reliability, like information on which company operates the site.	Statistics only, clearly not SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Industrias Lácteas Asturianas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is functionally the same as the one already existing in Spanish language Wikipedia. Seems that consistency in what is allowed should flow equally regardless of language.

I didn’t see a reason given for deletion. What is the logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmas01 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This firm appears to be known more under their brand-name "Reny Picot" and sometimes as "ILAS". I have added a couple of references, one of which is also available in English here. I have not yet decided whether they are sufficient for WP:NCORP but it is certainly close. AllyD (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the articles now referenced in the article, there is also a fairly detailed history of the firm in El País (2014). Overall, enough I think for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: El País (2014: [25], 2019: [26]), Europa Press (2006: [27], 2013: [28], 2017: [29], 2019: [30]), La Voz de Galicia (2017: [31])... --MarioGom (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Cole[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. There are some coverage about the book he authored but they are not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 07:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sōri to Yobanai de[edit]

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

The subject is a tv comedy in Japan, sourced only to Amazon (selling the box set), a tv listings page and a tvdb. The related ja.wiki article does not have any better sources, so nothing here to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: From lack of discussion, this nomination appears to have no quorum. It seems no previous PRODs, previous AfD discussions, previous undeletions, or a current redirect, so this nomination appears to be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the bot. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 13:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qiddiya circuit[edit]

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

This article was created prematurely. The circuit is a planned construction project that will not be ready for at least three years. There is no evidence of any contract between an event promoter and a racing category. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 13:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Heart of Mary School, Malabon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL/WP:ORG and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alie Layus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Layus is a minor model and singer. There is only one source in the article, and that is not enough to pass GNG. The article has existed for over 10 years and has no indication of getting improved. It was nominated for deletion 7 years ago, but due to low participation in the deletion discussion, it was kept as no consensus John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. DJs, models, and music producers are totally run of the mill. We delete them constantly. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In her various occupations, whether as a model, photographer, musician or DJ, I am not seeing evidence that the subject has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The content here does not include enough content to establish notability. Two sources are cited now. One is self published and the other is about something other than this topic, and I am not seeing this org profiled in that source. Fails WP:GNG based on available evidence. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on detectable coverage. This seems to be an active research center of more than ten year's standing, and they are producing a lot of reports and working papers. However, probably because none of these ever seem to have been published in peer-reviewed journals, there's hardly any mention of this body in the scientific literature, and very few other mentions on the web that are not primary. Productive + low profile = not good article material, unfortunately. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 13:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democratic Federation[edit]

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

It has been a politically irrelevant alliance. The very few available sources cite a founding meeting, but, despite it, the (small) political parties mentioned always acted individually, therefore de facto the alliance has never been active. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even several of the people arguing to keep point out that this is a character which may be notable in the future. If that turns out to be the case, it can always be undeleted. If somebody wants to work on this, ping me and I'll be happy to move it to draft space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punchline (character)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks any kind of independent notability besides Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant dominating the article. This article could be pure fancruft that is almost entirely primary sourced. Pahiy (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No sufficient secondary sources available to establish notability. SerTanmay (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nominator description is extremely misleading, to say the least. It literally says "This article lacks reliable secondary sources except for the reliable secondary sources it cites." And it lobs out the accusations of "fancruft" and "primary sources" even though there are no primary sources used and there is literally no cruft or plot summary in the article at all; it's entirely written from a real-world perspective. The article is a stub right now, which can and should be expanded in the future, but that's no reason to delete it. The article is supported by reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage, which establish that it passes WP:GNG, and there are a plethora of other sources out there (more and more each day) not currently in the article that could be used for future expansions, including (but not limited to) the stories below my signature. — Hunter Kahn 12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither WP:ONEEVENT nor WP:TOOSOON are technically right for this article, but they summarize my opinion pretty well anyway. The character is new. Every source is less than two months old. Give it some time and see if the character sticks. This wouldn't be the first time a new character is promoted as the NEXT BIG THING and flops. I'd be moving to draft so editors don't have to start from scratch if the character has staying power. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- By your own admission, neither of those two guidelines apply here, and a WP:CRYSTALBALL supposition that this character may or may not decline in popularity isn't a valid deletion argument either. You can feel free to nominate it for deletion again in the future if you think it's appropriate at that time, but the standard here is WP:GNG, and the simple truth is that it passes it. — Hunter Kahn 13:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If any one is using a crystal ball, I believe it's you. There's no reason to assume Punchline will continue to receive this volume of coverage (or, indeed, any coverage). I linked to one example of a character that was highly promoted and temporarily traded high but failed to thrive long term. I can list more. Superhero universes are littered with duds. The current coverage is insufficient to establish lasting notability, only temporary interest in a fictional element, hence my reference to two guidelines that detail this idea without being about fictional characters specifically. I acknowledge that I could be wrong, which is why I mentioned saving this as a draft. And the simple truth is that if the character clearly passed GNG, we wouldn't be here. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm making no predictions one way or the other about the character's future popularity. I'm simply utilizing existing reliable secondary sources, the significant coverage from which show that the subject satisfies WP:GNG, and since notability is not temporary, the article does not need to pass some sort of user-imposed guideline of future "lasting notability" in order to exist. — Hunter Kahn 17:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - For context, as of this writing the character has appeared in exactly one published comic book. That's one issue of Batman out of a series with 856 numbered installments, plus annuals, miniseries, and other comics starring the character like Detective. No amount of fan press surrounding that issue's release will demonstrate notability. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage and there's no reason to assume there will be WP:LASTING effects. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Coverage in secondary sources is the guiding factor of WP:GNG, not a count of how many issues the character has appeared in so far, or will in the future. I still believe any speculation on your part about the character's lasting effects is a WP:CRYSTAL issue, but we will obviously have to agree to disagree. — Hunter Kahn 19:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources listed, which demonstrate notability, at least at this point. I think the dueling crystal balls can be set aside for now. The character may grow in popularity and continue, or not. We can re-evaluate whether there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage after some time has passed. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, SUSTAINED is a more applicable link than the two I previously listed. I'll keep that in my back pocket for the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is technically enough to satisfy GNG; however, I don't think that necessarily means a standalone article is necessary (or desirable). I'll defer that to potential merge discussions down the line outside AfD, though. I would like to point out, though, that (character) might not be the best disambiguator per this article about additional characters and publications. Consider moving it to Punchline (DC Comics) per WP:NCC. While you could argue that the other two characters don't have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them, it would still probably be cleaner and still conform to WP:NCC#Between characters of different publishers. I personally interpret WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as being more applicable to cases of dropping a parenthetical disambiguator (which doesn't apply here).
This was also an interesting read and seems to support Argento Surfer's concerns, but time will tell, I suppose. Joker's Daughter did end up with a page (for better or worse... I don't actually know). -2pou (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft or redirect to some applicable list. The sources above are a bunch of low-weight topical pop-culture dribble for the most part. It's not like they cannot be used, but they shouldn't be the core of an article. CBR shouldn't be used at all in my opinion after reading some of their listicles that clearly show they have no editorial oversight going by how much they get wrong or just plain make up. TTN (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CBR experienced a big drop in quality after being sold in 2016. Aside from reviews and anything by Brian Cronin, I no longer find them reliable. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Interesting. I would have expected the article to be much longer and fancrufty, but the sources are actually better than for many lengthy pieces of fancruft. Still, there is not much outside of WP:PLOT, a bit about people cosplaying as her and such. No real reception, significance, or any hint of scholarly analysis. WP:TOOSOON, if you can say so about a comic book character. Maybe we can have a good article about her in few years if she becomes more famous, maybe gets portrayed in the Joker sequel or such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few other new sources available about this character, beyond those identified above and featured in the article, can be found below. — Hunter Kahn 17:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of new sources above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they have the same problem of being overly-topical and really just inheriting notability from the Joker. It's certainly reasonable to think that the character will end up truly notable down the line simply due to being around such a major character, but it belongs on a list until then. TTN (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. This is a rising character here. We just need to develop the page to make it better. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Yes, the notability could go either way in the near future. But I'm leaning on the side of WP:TOOSOON, as per Piotr Konieczny above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. – bradv🍁 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BallerAlert[edit]

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

Not notable, and the nearest thing to independent coverage is the minor negative coverage. The Forbes article is by "a conributor"-- that means, in practice, a press agent. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify When I approved this out of AfC it hinged on the Forbes article which I didn't realize was an independent contributor not directly affiliated with Forbes, so its premature admission to mainspace is my fault and not the page creators. As such, I'm suggesting it be draftified as to not punish the original page creator. I think it has a chance of being notable, seems as if the blog is quoted quite a bit in many mainstream outlets which in and of itself does not denote notability, but certainly helps its cause and is enough to justify it being allowed to incubate. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'll go along with the call to draftify for now but I have a lot of reservations on whether this topic will ever have sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The test for references is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content" is defined as content that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference meets the criteria so far. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to Sulfurboy's explanation. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Award[edit]

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

Scientific award in genomics. No readily apparent notability (WP:GNG). A Google search yields the occasional mention and such things as press releases of universities congratulating themselves on winning it. I'd suggest a merger to Human Genome Organisation, which awards it, but that article's notability also appears questionable.

Searching for sources is also complicated by the existence of the Peter P. Chen Award, an award in computer science, but confusingly this article asserts that this (genomics) award is also called the "Peter P. Chen Award". Sandstein 10:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made the page for the Peter P. Chen Award right before making the page for the Chen Award and accidentally forgot to drop the "Peter P." from the intro when I was writing the second page; that's my fault and it has been corrected. If groups like RIKEN, EurekaAlert!, and Academia Sinica are publicizing the award results, then they believe the scientific world will be interested in this. ₪RicknAsia₪ 13:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must agree with the nomination that the sourcing is unconvincing and either not sufficiently independent or not sufficiently significant. That some institutions release PR about their professors winning the award does not confer notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life in 2 Minutes[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. Only claims of notability are being an entry (but not winning) film festival that does not have a WP article (its website says that anyone can self-enter) and being recommended by some non-notable websites. Part of potential walled-garden for Elie Fahed. DMacks (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:NF, and has very few if any good sources. Dark-World25 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Uttarakhand Pradesh Congress Committee. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Youth Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Hemant Dabral^Talk 11:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a merge tag on the article, this should be responded to before AfD. A merge with redirect makes sense. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No merge tag on article, cant find any addition of such on history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent organization ~~Indian Youth Congress~~ Uttarakhand Pradesh Congress Committee. No evidence of independent notability and there's no worthwhile content to merge. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC) edited to add agreement with Goldsztajn's proposed target Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would rather propose redirection to Uttarakhand Pradesh Congress Committee since this is the relevant state level structure.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 13:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CentUp[edit]

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

Short-lived startup which never gained relevance for crowdfunding and was funded poorly. "CentUp [32] got more than 15,000 $US in initial funding from an Indiegogo campaign, but it didn’t turn into a successful project and effectively vanished." [33] --Mmgst23 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 14:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dehradun Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Hemant Dabral^Talk 11:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 14:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Crager[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable sources, except for profiles [34][35] based on company press releases. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Could setup as redirect to Envestnet. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social Coalition[edit]

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

It is unclear whether this organization was ever officially founded or just announced, however the only information on it is the announcements of Maurizio Landini, the activity of this "social coalition" has been non-existent or irrelevant. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 14:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Remondi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in reliable sources, just passing mention and press-release bios. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Choosing soft deletion rather than straight deletion as Staszek's comment is contingent on whether they participated in an election. If sources are found that would show the party did participate in an election, I'm willing to undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Christian Democracy[edit]

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

It was a tiny and irrelevant party, there seems to be no noteworthy information. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment If it took part in elections, then keep, otherwise delete. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment It does not appear that this party ever took part in elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would like to point up that this party is completely unknown even in Italy, none of its exponents has encyclopedic relevance and it has never participated in electoral competitions. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced stub for a party that did not apparently ever have any elected representatives. No evidence of notability under GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article has changed substantially over the course of this AfD, with later comments leaning more towards keep. No objection if somebody wants to renominate this to get a clean discussion starting from the current state of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Nichol[edit]

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

clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG Movedable (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I recovered a few sources from an older version of the article (which looked more like a CV than a Wikipedia article). This Seattle Times magazine supplement article seems to have the most coverage of the subject. The remaining articles that appear to pass WP:RS have one or two mentions of the subject, and are more about the projects her firm has worked on. Landscape Architecture Magazine, Architects Newspaper, HuffPost, another Seattle times. We require multiple reliable sources with depth of coverage; one isn't enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Movedable: Is this how you treat your classmates? ——SN 54129 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She clearly meets WP:ARCHITECT. For example, according to American Society of Landscape Architects, "Her mastery of the art, stewardship, and social responsibility of design practice has enriched and recharged communities, advanced understanding among municipalities and allied professionals, and consistently motivated design professionals to push boundaries...Her strong presence in prominent collaborations and articulate public voice have shifted how peers, clients, and the public think about the landscape architect’s role in complex urban projects." HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment she clearly doesn’t meet WP:ARCHITECT. Go read it. This sort of Industry Nomination is complete bumpf. she probably wrote it herself, it’s barely better than citing her LinkedIn profile.94.204.127.101 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 101. that's clearly not an independent source. ——SN 54129 17:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially a press release. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been lectured at my talk page for 'abrasiveness' in noting how much promotional and unencyclopedic fluff was posted by the article's creator. I removed large passages and placed them at the article's talk page. There's a balance between the generally constructive agenda of including previously bypassed subjects--in this case a female landscape architect--and choosing marginally notable subjects in the process. There are other issues, as well, per discussion at the article talk page. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of in depth sources. Initially I looked at the number of sources, most of which cite her peripherally, or acknowledge the firm. Happy to reverse this if more biographical content via WP:RELIABLE is introduced, but I'm not finding it online. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ARCHITECT as previously stated. Wikipedia has a significant bias when it comes to coverage of female architects and it shows in this page. Even 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 originally acknowledged in their own page that this is a notable architect. Note the major works section which is sourced with many notable projects that have their own Wikipedia page. --Carthradge (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Smiling) Really, Carthradge? Invoking my previous interpretation, after accusing me of discouraging women from editing? I didn't realize you'd value my opinion. Rationale for delete was clearly explained above. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThis is’t about bias, it’s about notability. The great majority of the sources are about the firm or projects, and are on the edge of WP:RS anyway. Simply working on a notable project does not automatically make the people involved notable themselves. 94.204.127.101 (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carthradge, and the strength of their argument. No indication that the subject meets the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO: the sources are either press releases (see above) or WP:MILL. Probably WP:TOOSOON, as their position would seem to be the equivalent of an Early Career Researcher. No indication of sustained or persistent coverage in third-party, reliable independent sources. ——SN 54129 06:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: She earned her BLA in 1997; in 1999, she co-founded GGN, which has won a boatload of awards and prestigious contracts for landscape architecture. She is not an early stage researcher. She was recently elected a member of the National Academy of Design (they have only 400-something members in all the divisions of art and architecture); I believe she therefore meets ANYBIO#1 for receiving "a well-known and significant award or honor" in her field. Furthermore, the repeated inclusion of her quotes and opinions in varied articles supports NARTIST#1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers." HouseOfChange (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've managed to misunderstand the significance of almost everything that you're citing: they either don't support the claim as you suggest or they support they claim of something else to notability. ——SN 54129 09:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she is featured in Elle, August 26, Volume 21, issue 12. The article is called "Rocking Your World: The Cityscaper," by Alexa Brazilian. I don't have full access, however. Maybe someone else can access it and see if it adds to notbility. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No luck here. These are the listed contributions by Brazilian at Elle [36]. Google search of their names and the article title didn't reveal anything yet. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT per WP:HEY, the article that exists now bears little resemblance to the article that was nominated for deletion. The article now includes more than two dozen RS that talk about SN, including her lead role in multiple notable projects and her being elected a member of the National Academy of Design. I don't know how to re-list this to ask for more people to take a look, but I wish somebody who knows how to do that would do it. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved, per an intensive effort by HouseOfChange to provide reliable sources. BD2412 T 23:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's still really just a load of minor mentions in trade press and/or press release type quotes from Nichol. There should be an article for the firm, but individually for her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belaythatorder (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Belaythatorder: The claim to GNG would be weak (although supposedly there is a profile of her in Elle) but being elected to National Academy of Design is honor that meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Also clear from the wealth of RS: A) she personally played lead role in several of her firm's major, notable, prizewinning projects, and B) she is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers." NARTIST #1 HouseOfChange (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as improved New sources have established notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effort Administrator[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: From lack of discussion, this nomination appears to have no quorum. It seems no previous PRODs, previous AfD discussions, previous undeletions, or a current redirect, so this nomination appears to be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its seven-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-07 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability and the software and its maker both appears to no longer be in existence. WP:NOTTEMP is a thing but that presumes that the subject was notable before and that doesn't appear to be the case here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Peerbhai[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Opening a bakery and writing a book doesn't make you automatically notable. Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. My partner has yards of cook books, and this one is not notable. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 New Orleans shooting[edit]

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

lacks notability and has no major impact on anyone YatesTucker00090 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Shootings involving multiple victims unfortunately happens all the time in New Orleans, such as this sequence[37] from 4 days ago. The article incident was widely reported internationally, probably due to the multitide of tourists who happened to be present at the time, but no WP:LASTING coverage beyond the burst of reporting in early December has materialized, so the incident seems to lack historical perspective (WP:NOTNEWS, although it still might be too early to tell). StonyBrook (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. There are several sources and many of them are national sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to elaborate more on my previous response. This incident was reported in multiple national sources including CNN, USA Today, ABC (not a local branch), Fox, NBC, and the New York Post. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per StonyBrook. WP:N demands that coverage should exist "over a period of time", ie, there is critical commentary showing impact after the initial news cycle. This shooting, which is pretty routine, does not demonstrate that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately mass shootings are a fairly routine event in the U.S. WP:EVENTCRIT states that "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes)...whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable" AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the subject shall not simply stands with comprehensive coverage because it was a news event and per WP:NOTNEWS. I searched related articles of last month (as of Mar 2020), and still see multiple references and mentioned link towards the subject, when reporting other shootings or describing the safety or gun violence. such as

* https://www.fox8live.com/2020/03/01/violent-weekend-nola-represents-uptick-murder-rate/

* https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/crime/27-people-have-been-killed-in-new-orleans-this-year-all-but-one-were-shot-to-death/289-1d5b5a93-f08e-45fa-b0ec-fa27c493326c

* https://www.vianolavie.org/2020/03/24/the-perils-of-media-contagion/

hence it seems to me the subject has become a referenceable and encyclopedia worthy subject, and meets WP:GNG xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references discuss the December 2019 shooting specifically; they only reference the general gun violence in New Orleans problem. StonyBrook (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Renaming / reworking the scope can be done outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Baine and Savarese[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Article is about a single odometer scam with no lasting effect or impact, poor coverage relying on local news and press releases, and no indication of importance. PROD was removed and contested. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this appears to be just a routine federal prosecution with no impact beyond a local news cycle. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this has received multiple news articles about it. Also other court cases that are articles have less sources and are articles. This scam affected hundreds of people. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS exists and the case appears to be a landmark. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those who post Keep votes should probably give the links to the existing significant coverage. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to as they are sourced/cited on the articles. (Even a google search pulls nearly a full page of information on the topic "Baine and Savarese".) Elijahandskip (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Landmark case with significant coverage. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per postdlf. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a trial court decision that has not received anything beyond local coverage. It's not a precedent at all - that would require legal citations or an appellate case. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Baine and Savarese odometer scheme. The crime may be significant; the legal case is not, and is merely an aspect of the event. We have plenty of articles on scams and scandals that culminated in a legal prosecution, but which are structured to reflect the greater significance of the criminal event. BD2412 T 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elijahandskip, Gene93k, Bbarmadillo, Analog Horror, Postdlf, and Bearian: BD2412 T 04:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was investigated by the local news as early as 2014 (with that investigation noting a case going back to 2011), and the early reporting only mentions Baine, so I revise my proposal and suggest moving it to Oscar M. Baine odometer tampering scheme. BD2412 T 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would not oppose a move to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not oppose a move. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun rewriting the article to this effect. BD2412 T 16:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: I only said that if one votes Keep, they should provide the relevant sources to support the vote. Wikipedia is not a beauty pageant, where you just "like this girl". If anything my vote is Weak delete (looking at the current references at the article), but since the discussion is mostly if favor of making it an informational article, I don't mind. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did add the 2014 investigation source. BD2412 T 19:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BD2412, otherwise delete as not a notable court case. GregJackP Boomer! 15:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename pretty much that is all needed here. Orientls (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of airlines of the Cook Islands. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct airlines of Cook Islands[edit]

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

Do we really need a list for one item? Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No, a one-item list like this is pretty pointless. However, there is List of airlines of the Cook Islands (also a one-item list!), so merge the two? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sounds like a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested move into the main list. MilborneOne (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lugnuts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penta Security[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG,WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Kleuske that this article fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I looked into the company, but wasn't able to find more than a couple of press releases. Unless other editors can find more third-party sources on the company, deletion makes the most sense. GroundFloor (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete I do not agree with Kleuske. A simple Google search returns a lot of information about the company. Its Korean page contains a lot of 3rd party press releases. It is clearly a legit company. Moreover, the page does not contain any controversial information. I see no reason of deleting the page. Richard5615 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Sock of Therachelyoon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases do not establish notability. Also, this is your first and only edit on Wikipedia. How come I suspect a conflict of interest? Kleuske (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic looks like it fails WP:NCORP. While the article cites a number of sources, said coverage lacks the depth and intellectual independence to qualify the subject as meeting NCORP; too many sources are press releases, routine business announcements, or trivial in nature. The article lists some awards the company has won, but none of these appear to be particularly notable either. As this is a Korean company some potential sources may exist in Korean, but these would need to be brought forward and heavily scrutinized. In addition - and per this COIN thread - this article can credibly be said to have been created with the intent to promote the topic in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without being able to analyze the Korean sources, I would say this reeks of promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The best reference appears to be the 2014 company profile piece in Datanet. Aside from that, there are press releases (such as December 2019), product inclusion in market vendor surveys, all of which help verify that this is a company going about its business, but I am not seeing sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has long been established that coverage by analyst firms meets the criteria for establishing notability. Penta Security has coverage by Gartner Research, Frost and Sullivan and Data Bridge Market Research to name a few. Therefore topic meets the criteria. Kleuske, GroundFloor, SamHolt6, ThatMontrealIP, AllyD can you review your !votes above in light of the existence of analyst reports? This article may need cleanup instead of deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The links posted by HighKing above are mostly passing mentions. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SEIU 32BJ. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SEIU Local 615[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Bold redirect reverted. WP:BRANCH applies. John from Idegon (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I originally redirected this but it was reverted. No evidence of any sources indicating notability since that revert. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, your redirect target is wrong. Secondly, historical information on 615 should be maintained either in this article or in the article for 32BJ, the union 615 merged into. (As the largest local in the country, 32BJ definitely meets the notability standard.) The problem with deleting this article as things currently stand is that I count at least four facts that are not in either destination article. Thirdly, I think that readers would be better served by fixing the current article to represent both "New England 615", as it is currently known, and the historical Local 615. A good model is the article on the International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen, which is today also subsumed into 32BJ and known as the National Conference of Firemen and Oilers. Since SEIU Local 615 is a stub, though, maybe we should move the article to New England 615 and go from there. --JECE (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it sounds as though you believe a redirect to SEIU 32BJ is most appropriate? I agree - and this was my original redirect! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, sorry. My first point was directed at John from Idegon. I agree in principle with the redirect, but see my second point on the need to merge before we redirect. (I acknowledge that my third point is somewhat moot if nobody actually does the legwork to expand this article and investigate historical notability.) --JECE (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to SEIU 32BJ; functionally, IIUC, 615 is a district of the local, although retaining the name of a former local. There's no reason to exclude the idea that it could not be stand alone article at some point in time (BRANCH doesn't trump GNG if the latter is met), but that does look to be the case here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Smith[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as a county treasurer and town selectman. These are not "inherently" notable roles for the purposes of WP:NPOL; local politicians need to show some genuine substance and significant press coverage to support it, and are not automatically entitled to have articles just because it's possible to offer technical verification that they existed. The only sources here, however, are a glancing namecheck in a county history book that features no substantive content about him, and his routine death notice in the newspaper classfieds. A local politician needs to show much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really of note with respect to this subject (who, as it happens, is actually named "Charles H. Smith, and died in 1906, not 1916). BD2412 T 13:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Norfolk County is one of the most over covered places in Wikipedia, as a result of the affliction of Dedhamania. County officials are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence that Smith is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and isn't particularly notable in any other sense. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Content and title adjustments are matters for further discussion. BD2412 T 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of private schools in San Jose, California[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I can find no reason why this “List of X in Y” should be notable. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, there is no reason why a list of schools in a particular area should be separated into public/private. Also consider adding List of private schools in Long Beach, California to the AfD. There are also plenty more: [38]. Ajf773 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN the list aides navigation and is informational Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There are 14 entries with their own Wikipedia article. This list is thus a valid list article as it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 05:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent with similar lists. I haven't been following things lately, but 5-10 years ago such lists would almost always be kept or merged into a "parent" article about the city. Wikipedia consensus can change over time and it may be that these days such pages are routinely deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the stats are updated. As of right now the stats are pretty old. Maybe such articles were kept in the past, but because of the newness of the website, the stats weren't so old. It would be interesting to have both the current and the old stats with changes in enrollment calculated out. Otherwise redirect this to San_Jose,_California#Primary_and_secondary_education.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to even have the stats, especially if they are unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make sure the names meet criteria of WP:LISTN. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief, Idaho[edit]

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

This news segment tells the whole story: started as a store named Addie's, renamed (supposedly) in the 1950s after a remark by the purchaser's wife. Topos consistently show only this building. The store/whatever is still there, and I have to say that Hee Haw is not a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because a populated place is the size of one household and business doesn't mean that it's not notable; Monowi, Nebraska is even incorporated, and Nothing, Arizona is pretty clearly notable despite never having much more than a gas station. Good Grief appears to be in a similar position; between the Hee Haw reference and its consistent use as a placename (see [39] [40], and even a mention in Congress), it's notable as a community despite its very small size. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eh, those aren't good comparisons for small places: Monowi does have "legal recognition" and once had a lot more people, and Nothing seems to have SIGCOV. But GMaps does appear to show something of an actual community (independent of nearby places and not a housing development), not just one old grouch. Just don't create another article for "Addie" that appears next to it there...it's clearly the same place then. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Addie IS right next to it, at least on the topos and according to GNIS. Going back into the 1960s, it shows up next to the tracks, and yes, there used to be a siding there, and Google at least believes in an "Old Addie Road". Trying to sort out all the structures is pretty much hopeless: the topo maps do appear to be in correspondence with contemporary aerial photos, and they show that the Addie buildings gradually disappear and that the buildings near the store start showing up in the late 1990s. Maybe this can be all combined into one place article, but I'm not sure how to write that at this point. However, I will reconsider this discussion and will probably withdraw it. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The three references found by TheCatalyst31 are trivial and are not sufficient to meet WP:GEOLAND#2. However, the ktvb.com article found by Mangoe does meet WP:GEOLAND#2. However (again), I'm not sure if one article is sufficient. I don't know that we've found anything to indicate that this place is a legally recognized location other than GNIS. I agree that it does not matter about the size of the location, what matters is whether it is legally recognized or if it has non-trivial coverage. I don't see that we have that here yet. Because there is one non-trivial article, I'm going with a weak keep. Merging would also be acceptable. Cxbrx (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lendale Johnson[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Only one article not from subject’s website. Plandu (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as a tennis player. Extremely non-notable as an extra in a TV pilot. That is head bangingly horrible that it is even included here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 12:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Jones (mystery writer)[edit]

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

Unref blp which has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. No evidence he is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some love (from, uh, someone), but his books appear to be consistently reviewed in reliable sources such as The New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, People, Entertainment Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fine example of what you get out of the community's "consensus" that only certain parts of the encyclopedia are fair game for active collaboration while the remainder of entries are merely the vanity project of some individual editor or another, otherwise described as a popularity contest. Something which is not very popular around here is the fact that a typical Google search will not tell you a whole lot about what was notable in the 1980s. Jones's website biography offers one very important clue: "After Kotzebue, I lived in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and then Anchorage again, working as a newspaper journalist. I won several major national awards for investigative stories that led to impeachment proceedings against one of Alaska’s governors, and for coverage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill." The Alaska governor in question was Bill Sheffield. That story and the oil spill (as well as a host of other stories coming from Alaska in the 1980s which have received little or no acknowledgement on the encyclopedia) were both very significant. If the Sheffield impeachment story is not as obvious to the average person compared with the oil spill, the most basic of Google searches turns up contemporary stories from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and UPI. That this article does not acknowledge any of this and dwells too much on a series of mystery novels is evidence that collaboration is lacking on this website, enabling someone's POVish exercise in myopia instead. If it's been tagged as NN for 12 years and my watchlist shows regular evidence of editor who have ample time for Wikipedia, I would think that someone could have arrived at this conclusion long ago. At the very least, the nominator could have performed the necessary amount of WP:BEFORE other editors are obviously performing. Clearing a maintenance category backlog merely for the sake of clearing a backlog ≠ a net benefit to achieving "the sum of all human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RadioKAOS, most of what you have written above is irrelevant and assuming bad faith (e.g. 'someone's POVish exercise in myopia...') or suggesting I am 'clearing a maintenance category backlog merely for the sake of clearing...' It isn't fair. Please stick to commenting on the notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, Jones' books are held in 100s of libraries ie. White Sky, Black Ice, Shaman Pass, Village of the Ghost Bears, Frozen Sun, Tundra Kill (198), The Big Empty (189), reflecting a "well-known collective of work"; there are also plenty of reviews of them with some titles having multiple (meeting WP:NBOOK and entitled to own standalone wikiarticle) ie. The Big Empty: Publishers Weekly (here), Booklist (here); White Sky, Black Ice: Publishers Weekly (here), Kirkus Reviews (here), The New York Times Book Review (here), Booklist and Library Journal (here); Shaman Pass: Publishers Weekly (here), Kirkus Reviews (here), The New York Times Book Review (here), Booklist (here); Frozen Sun: Kirkus Reviews (star review here), Library Journal, Booklist, and The New York Times Book Review (here); Village of the Ghost Bears: Publishers Weekly (star review here), Kirkus Reviews (star revivew here), The Guardian (here), The New York Times (here), Booklist, Library Journal, and School Library Journal (here), Midwest Book Review (here (under "Klausner's Bookshelf"); Tundra Kill: Publishers Weekly (star review here), Kirkus Reviews (here), Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (here (subscription required)). ps. these reviews werent difficult (although time consuming:)) to find, just gsearch booktitle author "reviews" and looked thru 1st 8 or so pages of results, and looked at a couple of library sites Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have removed blp notability tag from article as above shows that jones is. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple's sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick review of the above sources give enough of an indication of the subject's notability. If, as it appears, there are issues with respect to the sourcing, then I reckon that may be better sorted out on the article's talk page. Regards, MBlaze Lightning 15:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At this time, there is clear consensus to delete this article. I have no prejudice towards its recreation/consideration should notability increase in the future. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Toys[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The only example of significant coverage provided is [41], which still relies heavily on an interview with the founder. Other coverage doesn't discuss the subject to any appreciable depth. I wasn't able to find anything better online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, can you see the refideas I have listed on the talk page? Some of them are interviews but others are decent in-depth, including the local paper and MCVUK. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, I hadn't, which was my bad. That having been said, they all appear to be primarily interviews. I'm less confident that this is non-notable than I was before looking at that list, but ultimately I think I still come down on the non-notable side. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP A search in Google news brings up lot's more news sources such as Venture Beat and lot's of game related publications. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expertwikiguy, I see a lot of press releases, not much that passes the NCORP criteria. Could you pick out an article or two in particular that you think qualifies? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The company doesn't seem notable. I did a Google search and all that came up was a few articles about product releases. Which are trivial coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 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⁺⁺ 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duglas Alliance[edit]

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

Non-notable - Google News search shows negligible significant coverage in reliable sources. Also reads as advertising. Paul W (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there's some news about it and shady deals or something on Google News. Although they seem to be in Russian. I'd be hesitant to vote delete on a none English company that already has a few articles written about them and might have more that we aren't privy to because of the language barrier when searching for sources. For all we know there could be tons of articles about it in Russian news papers that we just can't find through a basic, English slanted Google Search. I'm willing to change my mind and vote delete though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Totally agree with you Adamant1. Trehe are so much news about Duglas Alliance in other languages (Russian, Ukrainian). I think we can’t delete an article about a company building hydropower plants. --Abcrad (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Abcrad, are the Russian/Ukrainian news items more than brief mentions, and/or reiterations of company press releases? I looked at one item in Russian using Google Translate and it had just one passing mention of the firm. By the way, a more substantial article in English is a Kyiv Post story about alleged corruption in Equatorial Guinea, and mentions Duglas Alliance's project appointment "despite having no experience in the sector" (if the article is kept, this should be referenced for balance/nPOV). Is the company or its people covered in other (Russian?) Wikis? Paul W (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC) - I have attempted to improve the article; article sources include paid-for directory links, and minor mentions in conference listings, etc, which, in my view, do not establish notability. Paul W (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Adamant1.

1. Russian/Ukrainian news contents more than brief mentions. For example: https://day.kyiv.ua/ru/article/ekonomika/40-let-demokraticheskoy-diktatury. 2. I asked for balance/nPOV (ltd -- not public company) and waiting for this. 3. Thanks a lot for improving the article! 4. Other (Russian?) Wikis: Sendje Power Station. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcrad (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC) --Abcrad (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The linked article mentions Duglas once - not substantial coverage. References to Duglas in the Russian article about Sendje include unreliable primary sources. English Wikipedia uses "Ltd" sparingly - often just in infoboxes to denote the legal entity. Paul W (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Adamant1. Thanks for the reply. Some sources added. --Abcrad (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These press releases are unreliable sources (see WP:IIS); the government is the client and has a financial relationship with Duglas Alliance. Paul W (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are right, this indicates the scale of the company.

Delete, Tried to give it a chance, but no reliable source materialized :( --Adamant1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree. This is a major energy project. This has been written on the government websites of Equatorial Guinea. --Abcrad (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Paul W said above, government websites aren't reliable secondary sources since they aren't independent of the subject due to having contract with them. Plus, they aren't experts in the field anyway. Even if they where though, the particular citations in the article still aren't enough since they are mostly (or all) just brief mentions or trivial coverage. Also, the whole "it's notable because it's a major company" is hand waving. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally nominated for deletion and then did my best to identify reliable and independent sources that might denote notability. But, like Adamant1, I don't feel notability is established. Paul W (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Paul W, give me some time. I'll find out the reliable and independent sources. I mean Russian business media like Forbes. Thank you. Abcrad (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Abcrad thinks he can find sources if he had more time, so giving him a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear RoySmith. The sources added. Thank you!--Abcrad (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two sources added so far are, in my view, unreliable. Both appear to be based heavily on material provided by Duglas Alliance. While I am assuming good faith, the timing of their publication (dates of 17 and 18 March - as an AfD discussion is relisted) is a little too coincidental for my liking, and the EUReporter article also repeatedly uses the full "Duglas Alliance Ltd" that appeared repeatedly in the first published version of the article. Paul W (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear HighKing. What about KyivPost investigation? Not "Independent content"? --Abcrad (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dear Abcrad, thank you, you know I think you're right to point specifically to theat article. In fact the kyivpost reference is good. But multiple (at least two) references are required. Can you point me to another that you believe is also good? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dear HighKing, also good the this reference and this. Abcrad (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither offer significant or substantial independent coverage. The second article contains just one reference to Duglas. As I have previously said, the Kyiv Post article is the most reliable source, but the company has little other coverage other than that which it has generated itself. Paul W (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response Dear Abcrad, thank you, but Paul is correct. Neither of the references discusses the company. The first reference mentions the company but the focus of the article is the hydropower plant (text visible here). The article also references the Kyiv Post article for some of the information. This article fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH also. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources to establish notability. Even if the Sendje Power Station is notable, that doesn't automatically mean that Duglas Alliance is. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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