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) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Purely self promotional. No reliable sources. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - Love their name, but despite a long existence they have no significant and reliable media coverage to satisfy the requirements at WP:NBAND. Note that they have a basic AllMusic entry but with no biography and just one single-paragraph review for one of their albums. Otherwise all that can be found are the typical retail/streaming sites and self-promotional efforts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, Actually to me also it looks promotional Alex-h (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The band exists for that many years and still did not manage to get significant coverage in WP:RS? It's not notable then. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced. There seems to be no significant coverage. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There don't seem to be any sources. I couldn't find anything. Tried searching in German too. Search is complicated a bit by the fact that Cryovac is also a brand of food packaging owned by Sealed Air. Vexations (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A reasonable number of these GmbH pages are too self-promotional and non-notable. Dorama285 00:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Vexations above, so barring any available quality sourcing that we've missed, the company is non-notable. PK650 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Article is without any sources.I could not find enough coverage, not notable. Alex-h (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as we're not a catalog. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article with substantial edits by Cryovac and with an advertising tone ("leading supplier", "real advantage", etc.) but absence of sources. Searches are finding distributor listings but not the substantial coverage required for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Anglia Medieval Fayre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All of the sources in the article are merely listings sites, and I cannot find any evidence of notability online other than WP:ROUTINE. Previously nominated for PROD in 2009 and no other major improvements seem to have been made as a result Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems to have only occurred a couple of times, 2009 and 2005 maybe? Can barely be Verified. Abductive (reasoning) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Has it just moved and changed its name, one or more times? I just searched on "Medieval Fayre Wimblington" (per article Wimblington was 2019 location), and find a webpage with count-down to the next Fayre, which will be a Viking themed one. Okay, oops, this is apparently in South Africa, but there are just 18 days and some hours until 7 March 2020 event! HERE is "Medieval in the Media" page with the Randburg Sun and The Citizen coverage (maybe not independent, maybe articles were written by the Fayre or participants). This South Africa one seems to be known as "Neigh-Bours Magical Medieval Fayre" or "Magical Medieval Fayre", and may be notable. Anyhow the AFD subject article maybe just needs to be expanded, updated. --Doncram (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment [was "Merge" or "redirect", tentatively.] We should look for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, and merger/redirect to a list-article might be an option. Note there are few members of Category:Medieval reenactment events (the category on the article now). But there are many in Category:Renaissance fairs, and in the U.S. "Renaissance fair" is the more common term and they are fairly popular and I think noteworthy. List of Renaissance fairs covers multiple events in U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and "Europe", but has no events listed in the United Kingdom at all. I suggest that list-article's title/focus could/should be moved/expanded a bit to cover other Medieval-themed or Viking-themed fairs, and to cover the U.K., and this could be covered there, with or without keeping a separate article about it. --Doncram (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After renaming and developing what is now List of Renaissance and Medieval fairs, and seeing that its members are fairs that have been held 10 years or more, or otherwise being clearly wikipedia-notable, I now see this East Anglia one as lesser. I expanded the list-article to include a separate section on the United Kingdom, and to expand scope (avoiding false distinction "Renaissance fairs" vs. Other Medieval Fairs), and to include all members of Category:Medieval-themed fairs. I also am adding a section for South Africa and listing the above-mentioned one. --Doncram (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see any evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable as only search results are corporate fundraising and press releases —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notable references easily found. Dorama285 14:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Shows no significant news coverage. There are a few results covering their most popular game "FoursqWAR" in niche sources. The article's name seems more notable as a WWII operation and has several other nonnotable uses. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is almost no coverage of the subject in independent, relibale sources. There are some press releases, and I found one very brief mention in a book, [1] and a review of FoursqWAR [2], but nothing in-depth about the company. Vexations (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low tier game developer with nothing notable about it. Seems it was created and mainly edited by a single article editor for the purposes of advertising also. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No independent or significant coverage of works listed, nor any bios or interviews, etc. Does not meet WP:GNG, IMHO. Wanderer0 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Middling coverage of her novel Populazzi from 2011 but nothing sig. There's drips of info here and there she's award winning, but IMDb listing shows two nominations, 2011 and 2015. Rdzogschen (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete @Rdzogschen:Populazzi reviews are all short, and none expand on Allen's bio. Fostrdv (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. While Li has appeared in several notable films and TV shows, none of their roles appear to be significant, with the potential exception of My Spy Family. However, Li's character only appears to have appeared in 5 episodes out of the 46-episode run. His role on Thomas may become significant, but does not appear to be at the moment. For this reason, Li is not considered to be likely to be notable by WP:NACTOR.

More importantly, Li does not meet the basic biographical notability criteria. The only source I was able to find that was not a press release or trivial mention was this Resonate article, which only talks about Li for one paragraph in a piece purportedly about him. This is well below the required significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete or Incubate - Determining what roles are significant by this subject is ambiguous. That is, to me having multiple episode stints on a show could in itself be considered significant. However, this isn't drawn up by the sources and with the sources provided the subject wholly fails WP:GNG. I think incubate in AfC is another option. However, proper warnings or temp bans would need to be issued to MetaWizz4331 to ensure they discontinue their disruptive editing and moving of the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or Draftify: I agree with the nominator. While the subject has done quite a bit of work over many years, I don't think he quite reaches the notability standards for actors—yet. As the nominator pointed out, the subject's role in Thomas may bring him notability, and for that reason I would recommended that the article be moved to draftspace should the consensus be to delete it. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The article's creator seems to have a close connection with the subject and has failed to keep a neutral point of view. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates for political office — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, and is relying on a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and purely local media coverage in his own local area — but people are not automatically exempted from having to pass the subject-specific inclusion test for their occupation just because they've gotten their name into their own local media a handful of times, either. At this level of prominence, he would have to show nationalizing coverage that made him much more special than other as yet non-winning city attorney candidates before he could claim that his media coverage exempted him from having to win the election. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Candidates don't get articles for only being candidates. Fails WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox.GDX420 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Missy Bevers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There does not appear to be continuing coverage in reliable sources, except locally--see Google News results. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is a preety talked about case. When I think of a wiki, I think of a case like this one. 11S117 (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One good source; the rest are Find a Grave and crime forum sites. This is not national news. Nate • (chatter) 02:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--JBL (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A death with no lasting significance, WP:NOTNEWS. Sources are self-published and/or lack reliability. WWGB (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added 2 WP:RS. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is room for a notable unsolved crime that is still receiving news coverage 3 years after the fact. The case is receiving national attention due to its being publicized over the airwaves, and there is certainly room for WP to WP:ALMANAC this case and thereby possibly help to solve it. StonyBrook (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

our role is not to publicize unsolved cases to help solve them--that's the role of newspapers and other media. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Alex-h (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, routine unsolved murder. Is it awful? Yes. Is it encyclopedic in the sense that WP:N asks for? (That is, has it gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time?) Nope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has been unsourced for years. Unable to find any significant and reliable media coverage to indicate that the show satisfies the notability requirements at WP:RPRGM. All that can be found are the usual promotions and pop culture list sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazlow Show and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazlow Jones---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I barely found anything about the radio show. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The only claim is mayor of Kollam which is not enough for her passing notability guideline. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While it it a large city, this mayor has not been covered in many news sources. It is possible thehindu.com articles have more, but I can't read it and the information here does not qualify.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL for not winning any major state or national elections. All mayors are not automatically notable. This one lacks significant coverage --DBigXrayᗙ 13:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that, absent significant coverage, mayors of even medium-sized cities like this subject are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junior 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This stub survived a deletion discussion in 2008 but it hasn’t really gone anywhere since then. The topic is a term in real estate jargon but I don’t see many sources using it. It may be a dictionary definition but it doesn’t seem notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - This definitely exists as an actual real estate term, but the source currently in the article is really the only one that does anything more than just define it. There really is not enough that would allow this to be anything more than this stub. But, if anyone can suggest a good place where this could potentially be merged or redirected, I would probably be fine with that. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a dicdef. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it could be merged somewhere, but don't see a good target. Renata (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Ahmed Khan Tarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. No significant coverage. Störm (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unknown film with poor sources. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't find any English sources, but if someone who speaks the language could give feedback about the sources in the article, I'd feel more comfortable providing a vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:@Dflaw4: The sources in the article - official website, Indiaglitz, Sify are all film related websites and are not notable. Times of India and The Hindu are notable examples for good websites. --DragoMynaa

• Thank you, DragoMynaa. The sources contained in the article aren't very good, there's no doubt about that. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: Given that I don't feel too well-placed to judge this article as regards notability, I'm giving it a tentative "Weak Delete". To me, the film doesn't appear notable, and I've struggled to find any sources, especially given how common the word "Paatti" is in online searches. I'd be more than willing to take on the thoughts of other editors, but for now I think a "Weak Delete" vote is fair. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:MERGEREASON bullet points 3 and 4. As the article is "similar to Eggs Benedict", it should be merged with that article just like all other variants of that dish. Also, it would greatly benefit from the context in Eggs Benedict. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content in this article can't merge to Eggs Benedict article. I haven't found any reliable sources so far that would support this. I've removed the line causing the confusion from the article. The Bloomsbury book explains that the term is used for two different dishes. Hickoryglaze (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think I agree with Hickoryglaze here. This seems to be a distinct dish, with it's own variations, and reliable sourcing to support it. I could see a "See also" entry on Eggs Benedict maybe being appropriate, though. Waggie (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Waggie: Which subject are you advocating keeping? Unless many of the sources are talking about both, we have two subjects here, which shouldn't be covered in one article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites, I'm advocating keeping Eggs Beauregard as a separate article (hence the keep vote, rather than a merge vote). There's reliable sourcing that discusses Eggs Beauregard independently of Eggs Benedict. Perhaps not the best example, but Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet are both variants/successors to Ethernet, and have standalone (albeit problematic) articles as there is reliable sourcing that discusses them independently - would you advocate merging these back into Ethernet? Waggie (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but which eggs beauregard? The article starts "Eggs Beauregard is an American term that is used for two egg dishes." Unless the sources predominantly talk about it being two dishes (and based on what I'm seeing, they don't), we should not have an article about two subjects. If we have two albums with the title "Greatest Hits", we don't keep it because both of them together return enough sources for notability -- we need to split it up and determine which is notable. If one is a variant on the other, we need sources to say that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems kind of silly to me to try and narrow down the article to only one particular recipe for Eggs Beauregard. It's a name that's gained attention WP:SIGCOV, and they're related dishes. That's my two cents. It's OK to disagree. :) Waggie (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a different recipe; it's a different subject. That's why the article says at the very start that it's an article about two subjects by the same name. They are both eggs, yes. Unless we're writing an article about a word itself, it's a WP:DICDEF (and WP:NOR) problem to write about two subjects just because they have the same name unless sources explicitly cover them together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From DICDEF: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns." (emphasis added) - I think that the article covers more than linguistic concerns and they are related by having the same name. Either way, I think it's time for us to leave the discussion to others. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively with eggs benedict. Among the high quality sources I'm seeing, there's a clear connection with the other topic. E.g. the cited NY Times article: "Eggs Beauregard is a twist on the familiar Eggs Benedict" and Houstonia: "Eggs Benedict, southern style." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer deletion to merging. Your logic is backwards, we can't merge an ambiguous term without explaining the ambiguity and it doesn't belong in the Eggs Benedict article. A passing comment in the NY Times is not enough to merge these articles. I would object strongly to my content being used this way I will object to the addition at the Eggs Benedict article as well. Hickoryglaze (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources that would clearly justify inclusion in the benedict article, so if it's deleted from here it would obviously be redirected where it's mentioned elsewhere. To the extent this is about two different subjects and one of them isn't necessarily considered a benedict, that wouldn't be merged (hence "selectively"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 'especially without the input of editors at that article who should have been given a chance to comment before a complicated "selective merger" was forced on them. (I am reluctant to outright support deletion as I think Hickoryglaze is most likely frustrated here, but I support their not wanting to circumvent the usual talk page discussion that should take place before mergers, especially a selective one that raise the possibly that inappropriate content will be pushed into the article.) It's not what AfD is for. Dartslilly (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While not a strong consensus there does appear to be a consensus that the available sources do not satisfy our notability requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lots of hits when searching but none come under WP:RS, so cannot be notable under WP guidelines. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keepas they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here and a staff album review there as well which is usually indicative that there are more sources. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. After several searches, I couldn't find much besides the Allmusic bio and review. While these are perfectly valid sources, it doesn't look like any criterion of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied here. --Michig (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep moving to full keep as managed to find some extra sources Huddersfield Examiner, Punk News,Punktastic, Music News, Punk News so that WP:GNG is passed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Delete - This "weak" vote surely isn't helping with the consensus process, but I must disagree with my longtime colleague Atlantic306 above. Those are indeed viable sources but I contend that each story is a minor introduction or brief review and I don't think they add up to enough significant and non-trivial coverage. The AllMusic bio helps their case, but beyond the sources listed by Atlantic306, I can find nothing beyond the typical retail/streaming sites and social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG. Of the provided sources, only two even have the pretense of independence: Hackaday and Packt Hub. Hackaday is apparently a blog and is thus assumed to not be reliable (see also this RSN discussion), whereas the content of the Packt Hub piece does not inspire confidence. Searching online, I wasn't able to find anything in internet or Scholar searches, although it's not impossible that I missed something due to the subject's minimalist name. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how I missed the previous nomination. I supposed I'll see if there's been more news since then. I do believe the language is more than a simple toy language though, it has at least received some form of coverage and a very popular github project with committed developers. Tiraboschi (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm going to abstain from voting as I am the person who approved this article out of AfD. Admittedly, upon re-review, approving this article was likely a mistake. User:Rosguill did a much better job than I on the deep dive of looking at the sources. Part of this I'd like to attribute to me shaking off rust of taking a few years off from AfC. Hopefully this can fall under WP:PNJCS or maybe User:Tiraboschi will be able to come up with at least one solid source. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Caution to those searching for reliable sources: There is a notable Vlang language[3] that has received academic interest as a verification language[4][5][6], however that language is not the V/Vlang described in this article. This article describes the language at vlang.io, which is a different language and has received very little attention, and fails on notability grounds. No one has even added it to List of programming languages by type. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources in the article are sub-standard, and my own searching (admittedly, only a cursory look) didn't show up anything better. I wouldn't be opposed to moving this back to draft space, but I honestly think all that would happen there is it would languish until the inevitable WP:G13, so I can't really recommend it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this page considered for deletion? The language is being used and recently became one of the officially recognised language by Github. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.73.178 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated because the nominator does not think it holds up to our notability guideline (read more here: WP:GNG). In short, we require substantial coverage in reliable sources for a subject to have an article on wikipedia. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Currently the sources presented do not hold up to WP:GNG. I found two more, but they are extremely lightweight ([7], [8]). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY (if he even exists). None of his alleged caps and goals supported by any sources. Player not found in any database website that's considered reliable (Soccerway, etc). Refunded by original creator after PROD delete. ----BlameRuiner (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I found this article that mentions an 18 year old player agent who supposedly orchestrated the Belibi transfer from Auxerre to Brommapojkarna. So the player might have existed as a youth prospect once, but fails WP:V in that no playing coverage can be found. I am not a Belibier just yet. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability concerns - nothing in GNews too. Note that his article was moved through PROD before, and was restored when the article creator asked for it back recently. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. P. Kurup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Municipal chairman is not a notable position Failed to pass WP:NPOL WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that, absent significant coverage, mayors of even medium-sized cities like this subject are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:POLITICIAN. Mayors don't get article just because they exist, they need to have done something more significant. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not meeting the requirements of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. - The9Man | (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Biography of what appears to be a non-notable marketer/journalist. Sources all appear to be either author bios on various websites (self-published, I think), articles written by the subject, YouTube video clips where he is interviewed briefly, and one passing mention. Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable journalist. --Yakudza (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the author of a song by Philipp Kirkorov - one of the famous artists of Russia. This meets the criteria WP:AUTHOR. 80.79.114.172 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant portion of that policy is The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. A lyricist for a single song (which I note does not have its own article) by a notable performer would not usually qualify. If you have sourcing to show that it does qualify, please present it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the song is not notable, it does not make its lyricist notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per John Pack Lambert. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. C. Josephine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Failed to pass WP:POLITICIAN Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She passes WP:NPOL due to her holding a major public post, being the chief of Kerala Women's Commission.[9] [10] [11] We also have articles on other WC chiefs e.g. Swati Maliwal. and other women's rights activists. DBigXrayᗙ 12:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She passes our notability criteria. She is the chairperson of Kerala Women's Commission.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NPOL.Idolmm (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that state commissioners are considered notable. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Josephine holds a notable post. Passes WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BEFORE? AfD is not cleanup.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not a clean-up. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does Not meet WP:GNG Failed to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Serving as a political secretary to the chief minister is not considered as a notable position in my book. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, due to lack of election victory or notable public post --DBigXrayᗙ 10:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  07:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does Not meet WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, easily passes WP:NPOL. Former member and chief whip in the Legislative Assembly of Kerala.^[1] Tayi Arajakate (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Per above. This individual served in the state legislature and was also chief whip. Enough to satisfy the criteria of WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speeedy Keep Per above. We consider MLAs are notable. Here he is chief whip.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is an essay rather than an article - difficult one to call but I feel it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and has been tagged as such for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect - perhaps redirect to Suitable age and discretion although that page also has some problems too. I can't find a better target, although there are a few other possibilities. It seems to me that this should really be part of a larger article about considerations of stages of maturity. I believe that is how Britannica treats it. It is a little more than a WP:DICTDEF, but I don't think this qualifies for an article of its own under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. A merge with Suitable age and discretion would also be possible, but here the poor state of this article mitigates against a merge. The content is not in a fit state to do so, thus redirect would be better. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ratings systems are widespread in practice and frequently documented and "age appropriateness" is often the only or primary factor considered or described by the rating systems. This article should be kept and filled out with content from articles such as the Canadian Home Video Rating System, the Korea Media Rating Board, Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand), British Board of Film Classification, the Australian Classification Board, and the Eirin as well as the specific articles about specific age based ratings such as R18 (British Board of Film Classification) (these articles where not in their current form when the article under discussion was created; the "Canadian Home Video Rating System" article, for instance, had no citations as of August 14, 2007‎). Hyacinth (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the article read like a very short essay, what was the presumed thesis which the essay was attempting to prove? Hyacinth (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- this is a concept used in education and film ratings, rather than suitable age and discretion, which is used in law; they are not exactly the same concept. Tone can be fixed outside of AfD with normal editing. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject of extensive scholarly analysis (> 12000 Google Scholar hits, many of which appear to involve detailed and substantive analysis of the concept). To be sure, the state of this article not great. In that respect, it's symptomatic of the pathetic state of Wikipedia's coverage of education (and the "soft" social sciences in general), which of course is the result of Wikipedia's unfortunate success in driving away so many good-faith content creators away. (Another factor is, of course, how badly we handle these fields in which concepts, terms and definitions are themselves in constant dispute, in ways that don't allow one to sort coverage neatly into piles marked "concept" and "word" as guidelines like WP:WORDISSUBJECT presume -- a failing that is both a cause and effect of the lack of knowledgeable editors in these fields -- but probably not directly applicable here, since there seems to be plenty of Wikipedia-friendly scholarship available.) It's certainly possible that in the future when Wikipedia's coverage has become less pathetic, a consensus might be reached through the wiki process to address this subject under some broader topic within the field of education. But in the meantime, putting articles up for deletion because they aren't already good enough isn't going to improve things, and is not an appropriate use of the deletion process. -- Visviva (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. My evaluation is is that BLP1E sufficiently applies and that it is in the interest of the project to expedite the result. El_C 18:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This person is known only for his crimes, but these don't meet the bar for notability per WP:CRIME. He's just a run-of-the-mill criminal who tried (and failed) to avoid being held to account for his crimes and that's not enough to get him an article. Neiltonks (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. And then burn the computer used to delete it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:CRIME states: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". There is encyclopedic material sources from multiple reliable sources here, so what existing article do you feel this content could be incorporated into? Waggie (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E and common sense: we have here a biography of a person notable only for a horrific crime; the article was created to celebrate the crime and further victimize the victim. I would support an IAR immediate deletion. —JBL (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not convinced that WP:BLP1E applies here. Specifically, I'm not convinced that the subject of the article meets the second criterion, "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," given the coverage on America's Most Wanted. The same goes for WP:CRIME, the AMW strikes me as satisfying "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role".

That being said, I find JBL's appeal to WP:IAR rather compelling. I do not like having this article on Wikipedia, and while the victim has been brave in both aiding the perp's capture and securing his imprisonment, I'm not convinced that retaining the article does her any good; and I lean toward deletion in the spirit of WP:do no harm.

I'm conflicted enough that I don't feel I ought to cast a !vote in favor of either keep or delete, but put this out there as something to consider. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ミラP 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable company. Sourced to LinkedIn, Glassdoor, the company's own website, and a profile in a business magazine that is largely made up of quotes by the company's managing director and shows no depth of analysis. My own searching turns up no more impressive sources. Clear fail of WP:ORG and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Hug^syrup 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I must have been reviewing this at the same time as Hugsyrup - I spent some time searching for better sourcing, but by the time I concluded that there wasn't anything online, it had already been nominated for deletion. The current sourcing doesn't establish an NCORP pass, and I could find nothing on Google that would satisfy CORPDEPTH - a lot of directory listings, some obvious promo, but nothing independent, secondary and reliable giving significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sourcing falls well short of passing WP:NORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G11 Unambiguous advertising: it literally just paraphrases their own website's "about" page, and A7 No indication of importance: every claim in the article is entirely mundane.----Pontificalibus 17:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Totally agree with the last person about it meeting G11. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Totally promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons enumerated Dorama285 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Laxmanbhai is a big company, maybe in top-10 of Kenyan construction companies. But if there are no sources, there are no sources.--Chuka Chief (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as a politician who never contested nor won any national or state level election. Only claim to notability is being a "state" spokesperson (spox) of BJP party, which is not a notable post . As discussed in earlier AfD this post does not merit an article DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG BonkHindrance (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not meeting the criterias for WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and no significant coverage, hence delete. - The9Man | (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus among neutral editors that there is not notability for this person. Different Wikipedias have different rules so this person may be notable in other languages. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Appears to have been written by family member, only sources are pamyat-naroda documents (but literally millions of soldiers have their documents on that website). Not awarded Hero of Soviet Union or qualifying for notability in any other way that differentiates her from the many other WWII military surgeons. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unfortunately fails GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not delete

During WWII (from September 1942 to May 1945), Valentina Vlasenko (Subbocheva) performed several thousand surgical operations, which are confirmed by documents. In reality, she performed much more operations, but many documents were not preserved. She worked not in a hospital, but in a medical battalion, directly near the battlefield, constantly risking her life. The operations she urgently performed in the battlefield saved the lives of at least several hundred soldiers.

There are articles on the WIKI about female snipers who killed more than one hundred Nazis (Nina Lobkovskaya, Ziba Ganiyeva), but there is no less contribution to the victory over fascism made the woman who saved the lives of hundreds of soldiers. Not everything can be compared, but when you read an article about a heroic woman who saved 74 Jewish children (Saide Afirova), it is worth remembering those who saved the lives of hundreds of wounded.

Instead of deleting an article about a front-line surgeon, one should write articles about other doctors who saved the lives of the wounded in the war.--Ввласенко (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what distinguishes her from the other front-line surgeons who did thousands of surguries? And why are the only sources the pamyat naroda documents (which do no define notability at all)? If she were notable she would have sufficient coverage in secondary sources about the feats credited to her - but the article has ZERO secondary sources. We cannot take the word of uncited documents that are missing that she was a top surgeon - we need secondary sources (like books, newspapers, and magazines) describing her feats. I am also under the impression you are related to her, and writing articles about family members, especially those who are not notable, is highly frowned upon. The reasons Nina Lobkovskaya, Ziba Ganiyeva, and Saide Afirova, are eligigle for articles is not the raw number of lives they saved or Nazis they killed - it's the media coverage they got. Those three all are described sufficiently in secondary sources cited in their articles, unlike Vlasenko. The highest military award she received was the Order of the Patriotic War 2nd class - not even remotely close to meeting notability standards considering literally millions were awarded it as a jubilee medal. Sorry, but your grandmother just doesn't make the cut. If we considered her notable, then we would have to allow literally millions of low-notability insignificant biographies about low-ranking, low-publicity military personell written by grandkids, which would turn Wikipedia into moypolk.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you read in Russian, I use it to express myself more accurately. You can answer me in English.

Вы правы, предположив, что я член семьи Валентины Власенко, она моя мать, что не ограничивает меня в правах участника ВИКИ.

Сначала об источниках.

1.Источники, перечисленные в разделе References, являются официальными документами Красной Армии. Они использованы как первичные источники, именно в них указаны действия Валентины Власенко (Суббочевой), за которые она была награждена.

2.Два печатных источника приведены в списке литературы. Они являются вторичными источниками. В них также описываются действия Валентины Власенко (Суббочевой) во время войны.

3.Ещё два вторичных источника указаны в разделе External links.

Таким образом, есть надёжные первичные источники и есть вторичные источники, в том числе печатные, следовательно, формальные требования выполнены.

Теперь о принципах.

Значимость энциклопедии, как системы знаний в различных отраслях, определяется широтой и надёжностью представленной информации, независимо от её современной публичности. Вы же подчёркиваете, что в ВИКИ должны быть упомянуты только публичные, освещаемые в СМИ люди, и если следовать этому принципу, то информация в ВИКИ, в частности, о людях, окажется вторичной и сиюминутной, следовательно, быстро устаревающей. Такие критерии как ранг наград, стареют очень быстро, а общечеловеческие ценности времени не подвластны. Историческая информация далеко не всегда является популярной, что не уменьшает её содержательности. Часто она оказывается важной с точки зрения сохранения источников, что тоже является одной из целей энциклопедии. Кроме того, принцип минимизации ограничений, используемый в ВИКИ, стоит рассматривать как возможность увеличивать содержание надёжной информации.

Замечу, что упоминание «мойполк» (возможно, «бессмертный полк») неуместно, поскольку к российской пропаганде статью причислить никак нельзя, она представлена только в английской и украинской ВИКИ, но не в русской.--Ввласенко (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but she just doesn't meet notability requirements. We can't give every surgeon awarded the Order of the Patriotic War who did a lot of surguries an article. While her feats are impressive they are by no means noteworthy or distinguishing enough for Wikipedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sourcing doesn't prove that WP:GNG is met and the subject does not meet the standards of WP:SOLDIER. As pointed out above her actions during the war, while certainly something to be proud of, are not particularly distinguishing and Wikipedia is not a place to write memorials to loved ones who have passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir S. Halwasiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. The politician has never held an elected office, let alone a notable one. The person neither seems to have any notable mentions from secondary sources with regards to his business career. The only secondary sources available on him either are hard to come by and at best give him a passing mention with regards to him receiving a regional secondary post within his party or about him switching his party once. The citations in the article are also misleading as one Indian Express marked source links to a whole different site altogether, and one Patrika (in Hindi) makes no mention of him at all. Most of the information in the article is unsourced. There is no evidence, that I could find which qualifies him for WP:GNG. It could also be a potential case of WP:PROMO. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NPOL. Article was recently created for WP:PROMO reasons. DBigXrayᗙ 15:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article reads like a promotional piece (WP:PROMO). LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not meeting WP:NPOL. More of promotional content. The9Man | (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Apocalypse (film series). (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse IV: Judgment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find no coverage in reliable sources for this film. The article is unsourced with an external link to IMDB. The film appears to have been one of those straight-to-DVD films that get little to no coverage. Candidate for redirection to Apocalypse (film series). Hog Farm (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Apocalypse (film series), though whether even the series as a whole is notable is debatable, as the series' article cites no sources either. Not a very active user (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Move for deletion because of WP:STATION. See Talk:Filben, Nevada. I previously put this article up for WP:PROD, User:Northamerica1000 to a look (thanks!), declined the prod and in their comment wrote "Some source searches are providing evidence that this was formerly a populated place. I recommend initiating a deletion discussion at AfD for wider community input, if deletion is still desired. Also, I did read the information on the talk page." In Talk:Filben, Nevada, I did find one source that mentions Filben as an old mining town, but that source also lists Rio Vista, Nevada, which was recently deleted. There are a couple of other sources (Myrick and Paher), but I don't have copies of those sources. For reference, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorne, Nevada. Kinkaid,_Nevada might also be not notable. Nevada has a many railroad stations that are not notable, it would be helpful to me to get some feedback on whether Filben is notable. Cxbrx (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep - it was originally known as Junction (good luck searching for that) but a Google Books search brings up a number of potential hits such as "filben"+"nevada"&dq="filben"+"nevada"&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVkIuy9cXnAhUjhuYKHdSgBLQ4KBDoAQgnMAA. Haven't found anything I'd call specifically definitive yet, though, but I don't think this is GNIS spam. SportingFlyer T·C 02:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete Digging into GNIS shows that the name "Filben" comes from a 1920-ish map published in Indiana; the map snippet (which is actually showing Southern Pacific Railroad lines, not MoPac) only gives evidence that it is a rail junction. (I have found an SP system map from the 1920s here which also shows Filben as the junction to the branch to Candelaria.) The oldest topo map I've found (from the late 1960s) shows the name "Candelaria Junction" and locates it on the abandoned grade, and looking at aerials you can indeed see the grade and the wye of the junction. What you cannot see is the slightest trace of any buildings, as opposed to Candelaria, Nevada itself, where there are plainly ruins. It's extremely obvious there was never a settlement here; there's no trace of anything except old railroad grade, and everything says that the junction was all that was ever there. We have tended to take isolated rail junctions as non-notable unless something significant happened there, and using it as a reference point for a minor tremblor is really not enough in my opinion. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is absolutely nothing there on the satellite view. Nothing to suggest this was ever a populated place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1967 topo map shows merely a junction at Candelaria Junction, aka Filben per GNIS. Its citation says Filben name is per a map using 1920 data, but the 1911 topo likewise shows no evidence of a community. We need something more concrete than this for notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Apparently non-notable YouTuber. Possible A7 candidate, but I'm not super great with finding non-English sources. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article about him was also deleted on German Wiki for the same notability issues. There are no mentions in reliable independent German sources - just social media and user generated sites. Less Unless (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of any notability at all. Like the nominator, I was also debating going for A7 but I've seen people argue that the viewership figures on these sorts of articles constitute a claim of importance. Either way - fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable English language poet. Fails WP:NPOET. Störm (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I created this article quite some time ago and while not very notable, or famous, the poet Omer Tarin is still reasonably notable and well known as a Pakistani poet writing in English. He has received some critical attention in his country and elsewhere and students have even written research theses on his poetic writings. I still believe this article has a future for eventual expansion as the poet is still writing and his work is regularly published. So I would suggest to Keep, please. thanks. Khani100 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100 Blocked sock[reply]

  @Khani100: Could you link examples of the critical attention or theses? — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi MarkH21, I can mention some of the sources offhand but I don't think they would be available online. For example, well-known Pakistani critics and writers like Tariq Rahman and Alamgir Hashmi have critiqued his poetry in their articles in Pakistani and foreign publications. I think a review appeared many years ago in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature , UK in the 1990s. I also remember that 2-3 theses were written on his poetry at BA and MA levels, in Pakistan. I think one thesis was written by a student at the University of Malakand in KP province of Pakistan, I think it was supervised by Prof Aziz of that university's English Department, probably sometime in 2013-2014. Many Pakistani writers and poets who write in English and are quite well-known started writing way back in the 1980s and the 1990s , they were also critiqued and reviewed back then mostly but does that mean that if something isn't available online it doesn't exist? Look at the pages on Wikipedia regarding Pakistani poets like Kaleem Omar, Taufiq Rafat, Shahryar Rashed and others. They are all well known writers but there is little material available on them today online. Omer Tarin is part of this chain or tradition of English poetry from Pakistan. Except for a few , the rest are now deceased. Omer Tarin and Harris Khalique are two who are still writing and will certainly grow in name and stature. They should remain. Khani100 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100 Blocked sock[reply]

  They don't have to be online links, but specific citations (e.g. titles, publication details, etc.) would be nice for verification purposes. We need to know for sure whether the subject passes one of the criteria of WP:NPOET. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, as I said before I am sorry I don’t have many details available with me now, as I mostly stopped editing Wikipedia maybe 8-9 years ago, although I do a bit occasionally. As far as critical reviews are concerned, if you look at the References section on the Omer Tarin page I think there are full citations given of some articles and reviews of his poetry by prominent Pakistani literary critics Dr Tariq Rahman, Muneeza Shamsie and Prof Eric Cyprian. Alamgir Hashmi the poet and academic also reviewed his poetry as well as some other poets from Pakistan in a research article in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature , UK, in September 1995, Vol 30 I think. Omer Tarin also played a part in developing the theory of a Pakistani literary-artistic idiom along with scholars, critics and poets like Taufiq Rafat, Raza Romi and others, this article by the writer Bina Shah briefly refers to this theoretic recognition: https://www.dawn.com/news/1240869 . He is also a historian and his writings and contributions in this field have also been recognized in books by some authors like Peter Oborne in his book on Pakistani cricket: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=EXXGBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA523&lpg=PA523&dq=omer+tarin+and+peter+oborne&source=bl&ots=AoyFfJkZJY&sig=ACfU3U1IolbPEnzsctKet-1TMiv0pV_PEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiiqoLv3LbnAhXJMMAKHdASDLgQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=omer%20tarin%20and%20peter%20oborne&f=false In fact, if Omer Tarin’s literary and academic work is compared with other Pakistani writers it’s actually reasonably notable and noteworthy. Khani100 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100 Blocked sock[reply]

Sir please I request, why you wish to delete this ? Kindly Keep. Many people like the poetry of Omar Tarin , a good poet from our country. Most humbly, thanks. SyedAnjumAli1 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)SyedAnjumAli1 Blocked sock[reply]

• Comment. One might argue that he passes WP:AUTHOR #4c (he did won some attention, and who knows if it was "significant"), however the history of creating this page and multiple accounts are concerning. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Socktastic editor also made articles for him in German, Scots (!) and Fiji Hindi. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOET. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: There are reviews towards NPOET #1 & #3, but not enough for the admittedly subjective significant, important, or well-known. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL He never won any election the article made with WP:REFBOMB Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Taking into account the refs in the article - the subject has been covered by multiple reliable independent sources which makes him notable per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Less Unless (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person political activist..? If so, have this person contested any election..??-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the subject meets WP:GNG but fails the specific - he is still considered notable. Specific notability guidelines are not primary. Citation from the guideline: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". Less Unless (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is a notable person in the local politics, headed a political party PDP , in Kerala state of India. Irfannaseefp (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily meets WP:BASIC. AfD is not cleanup.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:GNG is clearly established by sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been written in an advertising manner. The article does not cite secondary reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keepish or Draftify. I agree that the article is somewhat promotional, it definitely needs a clean-up, but I have found secondary sources that can be used to expand the article: LePoint, Profile on Bloomberg, China Daily, Bangkok Post, Business Wire. So my option is to keep and enhance. Less Unless (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I spent some time adding the valuable secondary sources from Less Unless to the article, as well as doing some general cleanup to it. I believe that the company itself has enough notability to be included. While looking for other secondary sources, many news corporations discussed the company, with the company's own findings coming up in journals from at least 2002. Some cleanup could still be done though to bring it to a more acceptable level, but as it stands now, it's at least much less promotional than before. Khu'hamgaba Kitap ^talk 01:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot. This leaves open the possibility of a merge if someone is so inclined. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behind Enemy Lines (2017 TV pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As per WP:TVSHOW, unaired TV pilots are generally not notable enough for standalone articles. This article consists of nothing but casting notices (and the one "Fox passes on pilot" article) which, on their own, do not demonstrate notability. Instead, article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot which is how the subject should be handled. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No cult notability, no airing after pilot season, and outside a couple of known names to sell the series, everyone else remains a cast of unknowns. Nothing here to keep outside a one-sentence line about it in the 2001 film article. Nate • (chatter) 14:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirect to the film. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot. And since that seems to be what the nominator is proposing, I'm unclear why this was brought to AFD at all and not just boldly redirected? Hug^syrup 15:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because AfD decisions are binding. Also, I'm at "delete, and then redirect", rather than just "redirect". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is consensus at the talk page, if the redirect is controversial or reverted. And why? Is there something in the page history that needs to be removed? If not, I cannot see any good reason for 'delete & redirect' rather than just 'redirect'. Hug^syrup 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as nominator has admitted to deliberately misusing AfD. I would not necessarily be opposed to a redirect without deletion if discussed at the proper venue, however. Modernponderer (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you babbling about? I see you're bad faith casting WP:ASPERSIONS, with no basis in fact, as usual. (Note: This editor has a history of him assuming bad faith on my part – more can be found at my talk page...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:IJBall: No aspersions here. I'm simply referring to your discussion with User:Hugsyrup immediately above. Modernponderer (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which shows nothing of a "deliberate misuse" of AfD. So, no – assuming bad faith, and WP:ASPERSIONS, indeed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the production section to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot. While notability is not sufficient for a stand-alone article, the sources are fine and content is more in-depth than the merge target. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Draftify or Merge: I was under the impression that "Behind Enemy Lines" did air, as a TV movie. In fact, I thought I saw it! I've only just seen this nomination now, but would like to look into it and perhaps work on the article. There seem to be sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG at the very least, so "Keeping" or "Draftifying" for the moment doesn't seem too big an issue. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Nominator: Hi, IJBall, could you please clarify your position for me, because I saw on the article's "Talk" page that you said the article should be "merged"? Here, however, you seem to be opting for a "delete" or a "redirect". If you could clear this up for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, any of "merge", "redirect" or "delete" is fine by me. Personally, I don't think the casting info for an unaired pilot – and to be clear, this did not ever air anywhere AFAICT, certainly not in the U.S. (there are Behind Enemy Lines "sequel" films that have been released, but they are unrelated to this TV pilot) – is important enough to "merge", but I understand if others disagree. But as per WP:TVSHOW, casting announcements for an unaired TV pilot are not enough to show notability for an article. (Generally, TV show notability is shown by a mix of articles on production, critical reviews, and sometimes analysis of themes or characters.) So, personally, I am more at "redirect" or "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying, IJBall. This is confusing for me because, as I said, I thought I had seen it—I am probably mistaking it for something else, though I honestly thought I had seen it as a TV movie. I'll keep digging for a bit and see if there's anything else out there on it, and then I'll update my vote if necessary. Thanks again, Dflaw4 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about an event in 2016 fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:LASTING due to the lack of sustained coverage over time. DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Not every "gathering" belongs in the encyclopedia. Not even the unusually large ones. BD2412 T 13:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article fails to establish notability. The single reception source is a trivial gameplay blurb that doesn't even really belong in the article. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. No notability beyond that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Monster Manual cruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or, failing that, merge to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters: Aside from two minor mentions in secondary sources already present in the article, the Arcane article does not dwell long on the githyanki, but provides analysis of a game element and its usefulness, the absence of which is usually brought forth as a an argument for deletion. As for length, The Monsters Know What They're Doing does some three pages on the githyanki. If that's not deemed enough for keeping the article, it should be merged and redirected because loosing the information present by deletion has no benefits, while it can improve the merge target. Daranios (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or draftify pending improvement. BD2412 T 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Fiend Folio. Minor mentions do not count towards GNG, and it has been pretty well established that The Monsters Know What They're Doing is useless for notability purposes. I am not sure about the status of Arcane, but one source is not enough to pass GNG in any case. The Fiend Folio article contains a sentence of the Githyanki, and is a better target than the alternative. As with other D&D articles, it should be deleted before redirecting to prevent recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Devonian Wombat! Where and on what basis has it been "pretty well established that The Monsters Know What They're Doing is useless for notability purposes"? Who get's to decide such a thing permanently? I guess one can argue about the merits of the content for the githyanki entry in this book, but to discount the book as a whole is quite a different matter. Cool username, by the way. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The coverage in secondary sources is either trivial, or, as in the case of the suggested The Monsters Know What They're Doing, is nothing more than a literal game guide about how to use them in-game. There is no coverage in reliable, secondary sources that actually indicate real world notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the creative origin or an evaluation if a game element is a good game element is trivial. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BLP with no real evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one source cited in the article may be of the sort that supports notability, and I find no others via Google. Largoplazo (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete my research also hasn't shown any significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG as well as specific. Less Unless (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The SXSW links should be done away with. Linkedin & Twitter accounts should be categorized as External Links. Article needs some minor cleanup. Other than that, article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What reliable sources have you seen with significant independent coverage that support a finding of notability? That's the pertinent question. Largoplazo (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any real significant coverage by reliable sources outside the one source mentioned above by Largoplazo. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D.C.. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist as a separate article. With respect to the ultimate resolution, there is no clear consensus, and enough support for the information being useful that a merge remains as the best option. BD2412 T 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Pakistan, Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. 3 of the 5 references merely confirm who was consul. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]