< 26 February	28 February >

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. KaisaL (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Shmurda[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discusses the subject. As a matter of fact, all of the references are promotional links to the subject's music. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Far too much promotion. Otr500 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adjo Evonlah[edit]

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

It is too early. There is limited sources, mostly about her winning a contest for Black History Month earlier this week. Her CEO status was only a one or two line mention. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Way too soon. As a BLP there just is not enough encyclopedic notability. Otr500 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a textbook case of someone being non-notable. Lots of buzz words no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:BLP1E, and WP:SIGCOV. Like many high-schoolers, she invented something, she got to shadow a city councilman for a day, and she won a contest for Black History Month. Good for her. She's not yet notable, and the total lack of coverage after each mention shows it. Bearian (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Lynn[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current sources are a puff-piece AVN profile/interview and a short, promotional bio of Ms. Lynn in an AVN award listing; please note that porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only trivial or promotional coverage such as cast lists and event billings. Cheers, gnu 57 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is yet another case of someone who seems to have had a potentially significant career in the pre-digital era but has an extreme lack of digitally available sources (nor the ability to verify that any others exist). It's quite possible an article could be written if someone had access to the right sources from that era, but as we don't have access to enough WP:RS to even attempt to write an article it's a clear delete at this stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Industry hall of fame is something, but I don't think it is sufficient. More sources / recognition would be needed to ass WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the GNG. I am dancing in joy that we have finally gotten the American pornographic actresses category below 300 articles. It is still unjustifiably large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested by The Drover's Wife. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear lack of appropriate sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimue Smit[edit]

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

She's done some notable work, sure. But there isn't much of significant coverage out there to verify that. There's a blurb here or there. ⌚️ (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's allegedly done some major work, but the sources are terrible. Ping me if you can find good proof. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing significant for inclusion. Fails WP:GNG. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maqbool Bhat. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chowk Shaheedan[edit]

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

No coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Appears to be a traffic circle, not a square. There may be a monument in the middle of it but short of coverage it would not be notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak Delete' - I was unable to find coverage specifically about the square; I only found discussion of events that happened at the square and most of these were opening shops, and other passing mentions. I tried searching on the Urdu but found nothing notable. If significant coverage is found, e.g. in the Urdu press, then please ping me. Ross-c (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had some luck and added 2 newspaper references from The News International and 1 reference from Zee News TV Channel website. Will keep looking, though, for more in-depth coverage and hopefully add it soon. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maqbool Bhat. Most of the article is talking about Maqbool Bhat, anyway. All sources discuss Maqbool Bhat and not the subject. No evidence of notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note further 2 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article - it is sourcing relating to Bhat. The third mentions the subject once, apparently as the site of a protest - it does not discuss the subject in any detail. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there's a weak consensus that the content shouldn't exist, leaning on a redirect as an ATD, but I'm loathe to rely on that without more discussion and without a mention at the target. Regardless, this could use some better consideration of those sources, so one more relist shouldn't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 27 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar travel in fiction[edit]

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

Nuke the pointless list: there is an infinite number of scifi works involving interstellar travel. No objection to recreating an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources directly discussing the concept in depth. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. An article could be written about the various methods depicted (FTL, generation ship, etc.), but this list is useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly broad topic considering how many fictional methods for interstellar travel there are, and the content is just a bare unsourced list with little navigational value. Reyk _YO! 07:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a bare bones list masquerading as an article. There is a possibly notable subject here, but we need indepth reliable source discussion articles, and if they have been written they have not been identified and included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharat (unfinished film)[edit]

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

There are four sources in the article. The lone source presented in the article is not considered as reliable source. The Times of India links are gossip. The filming of the film is not started as of today. The article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Unfinished films are almost never notable. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the film is not even finished yet. Too early to have an article on this. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Doan[edit]

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

Non-notable actor - does not meet WP:NACTOR with no major appearances. GSS ^💬 18:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 18:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 18:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:TOOSOON, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTRESUME. There are zero reliable sources. This is an ordinary, young actor at the very beginning of his professional career. Everybody knows in 2020 that we are a charity, not a free resume service. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I can't speak to the subject's stage career, but it seems a little WP:TOOSOON for an article. And sourcing is another problem. Dflaw4 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaerin Kim[edit]

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

Not enough sources - person is not notable enough to deserve article. How come the only pieces of information about this person is on her website and her school (which she works at)? Nothing can be found online, most of the information comes from her website (which she wrote so it is not an independent source) Person who wrote this must be her or must have known her - sounds like an advertisement a little. The proponents of this article must find much more primary evidences to back up what is being said about this person. It fails to meet all 5 of the notability requirements. Read WP:BIO and WP:MBIO Readnews1 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:PROF. There's no coverage in independent sources to prove these supposed awards, touring, and positions. As an adjunct, she does not pass "the professor test". Sorry. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Buckley[edit]

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

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Article is unambiguous advertising or promotion per G11. Multiple issues tag has not changed for nine years. Buckley does not meet notabibility requirements for musicians per WP:MUSICBIO. Kire1975 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Send it away. -- Dorama285 18:10, 05 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced and no evidence in searches that suggests passing any applicable SNG or the GNG. The best claim to notability is their work as a session and touring drummer but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable drummer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he seems to be some sort of back-up drummer who tours with bands. Perhaps some of this can be merged into Tegan and Sara, his most recent collaboration, but I'm not sure. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hope of Glory[edit]

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

Book is not notable per WP:BK. RandomWookiee (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A book derived from sermons on the Seven Last Words is unlikely to be notable. An article on the theological concept of the Hope of glory might be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep and move to "The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross" - May be WP:TOOSOON as book was published 9 days ago. Author is notable, and has a page. Everything currently on this page is also already on that page in the bibliography section so there is no case to merge. I agree that it does not meet WP:BKCRIT so is not notable for a page. I would also oppose creation of a redirect. The title is a Bible quote and found in a number of other works, so it would be confusing to redirect it to the author's page. The creator has also created two redirects to this one that would also need to go, if this is deleted. They are The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross and The Hope of Glory (book). -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update Since I wrote the above the article has been expanded with sources (it only had a promotional one before). In light of the Newsweek article, which I missed when I was searching yesterday, I think this just makes a keep, but in light of the notable author, any lack of sourcing is just that it is a little too soon, and I am confident it will definitely meet WP:NBOOK soon. The Newsweek article is short and general (if it were unlikely that the book would receive any more attention, I think the Newsweek article would be insufficient to establish notability, but the book is pretty much bound to receive more attention). I am thus modifying my position to keep. However, I remain strongly of the view that the book has not gained sufficient notability to be the primary page for the title "The Hope of Glory". This title is already the title of multiple books including: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Goodreads lists it as a component of the title (as for this book) in 129 titles. It is also a Bible term, a frequent sermon topic, and a theological perspective. As that is not even the actual title of this book, the book should be listed under its actual title. A redirect from the shorter "The Hope and Glory" would be acceptable until and unless a disambiguation page is required. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While Jon Meacham is a very notable biographer, notability is not inherited. This book was released only a few days ago, so it has not had enough time to establish its own notability. Until then, this is is WP:CRYSTAL. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Press appearances are not independent. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per WP:BOOKCRIT #1. I couldn't find the Publishers Weekly review, but now that someone found it, it clearly has two reliable reviews (Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly). Bait30 ^Talk? 20:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. If the subject of an article has been the subject of multiple third-party sources, then we keep it. These other judgments like if the book is interesting or if author has a page are irrelevant. I came here because I watch this user's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note: creator): The book was just published and there are additional sources to add. Meacham is a notable author of several other independently notable books, and he is doing many press appearances. Also, even if this topic were deemed not notable at this time, redirecting would be more appropriate than deleting altogether. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable author Done, major publisher Done, notable topic Done, mentions in Newsweek and the Today show Done, ya, let's put it up for deletion! Please, someone, stop the deletion express when obvious 'Keep' pages are concerned (maybe a new set of guidelines are needed?). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK, it’s got two reviews from reliable sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK, reviews from PW and Kirkus suffice. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hard to see how a book that a reliable source named as one of the "20 Most-Anticipated Books of 2020" wouldn't meet WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. Has two or more independent reviews in reliable sources. Hog Farm (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross, as noted above, this is a a fairly common phrase, and it would be annoying for someone searching the general phrase and not the book to come up with this article instead. The Hope of Glory (book) redirect should be deleted as unnecessary--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, Your vote implies keeping the article, but can you specifically confirm your preference to keep or delete? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to delete the The Hope of Glory, but want to keep the article itself, moved.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, multiple reviews, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Reviews are common for popular authors and can not be the sole indicator of notability. WP:SUSTAINED - "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." WP:IINFO "Wikipedia articles should not be: Summary-only descriptions of works." There is nothing in the article discussing the significance and influence. As is, the article does not contain anything beyond a common book review or promotional snippet and the article is unlikely to expand. RandomWookiee (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC) struck second delete vote by the nominator, the nomination itself counts as a delete vote, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reliable sources such as independent book reviews shows a clear pass of WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK --Fadesga (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ibolya Ryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Previous deletion discussion (dominated, as usual, by people who clearly have not read or understood that guideline) closed as no consensus. All the cites are either news coverage of the event, news coverage of the trial or the perps execution; nothing to indicate any lasting significance. TheLongTone (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Someone needs to stop this guy, going on a deletion spree. 11S117 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIVIL. Some things, including this, are not worth including in an encyclopedia.TheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This does not fit the criteria for WP:NOTNEWS. This has WP:GEOSCOPE and by the nom's own admission WP:DEPTH. Being the subject of an academic publication by the Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College ([6]) is not WP:ROUTINE. Bait30 ^Talk? 18:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the few terror attacks in UAE that received international coverage due to the attacker's target and motive.Gianluigi02 (talk), 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bait30. This exceeds the scope of NOTNEWS.Daß Wölf 19:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it exceeds the coverage due to being news why is this not reflected in the article? Have any of you heard of wire services?TheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...which account for what Bait30 wrongly takes to be an admission of coverage in depth. I would also point out that this crime is not "the subject of an academic publication by the Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College"; it is mentioned in the paper, which is titled "Framing State Narratives on Terror".TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that’s the subtitle. The title is “The Reem Island Ghost” with Reem Island being the location that the attack took place. If you read the introduction, it’s very clear that the publication is about how the UAE is handling this specific terror attack. And I’m not sure why you’re mentioning wire services. Of the 35 sources, I believe only 2 of them came from wire services (Reuters and AP). Bait30 ^Talk? 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, its using this attack as an example. An entirely different kettle of fish.TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

” This case study examines the effort of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to rebuild international confidence in its carefully managed image as a secure, tolerant and viable international partner following the brutal murder of an American school teacher in Abu Dhabi by a Yemeni-born Emirati national in early December 2014” (Walker 2016). I’m going to stop responding now so I’m not WP:BLUD. Bait30 ^Talk? 18:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sole victim of a terrorist attack that caused US DOS and UK foreign affairs officials to issue travel warnings. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarv Webs[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Two or three reliable articles attest its involvement in a notable(???) scandal, but it doesn't appear to be notable on its own; not all the sources on the election/the scandal even mention Sarv. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. Especially considering the company isn't even mentioned in some of the citations. It appears to me that the "scandal" was just inserted in there as a way to make an article that's clearly an advert seem like it's for a notable subject when it isn't. Total, scam. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill digital marketing company for politicians. Notwithstanding the "controversies" section, this is classic spam. In 2020, everybody knows we are a charity, not a web-host. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons stated. Dorama285 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing here (description of company registration, minor trade awards and a role in political campaigning) is indicative of more than a firm going about its business; no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. People can, and do here, disagree in good faith about whether this was routine news coverage of a routine political event, or something of lasting importance. Sandstein 09:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Trump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Article seems like a promotion or advertisment of the person. Hemant Dabral^Talk 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in the New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Guardian in the article, all major news sources. Not sure why WP:NORG and "person" are brought up in the nomination, as this is actually an event, not an organization or person. The criteria for an event is WP:NEVENT. While we don't know for sure if the coverage of the event will be lasting, my take on that debate is that the article should be kept until it is obvious that the coverage is not lasting. Otherwise, we'd have to have a year or two hiatus before creating articles on about an event. Feel free to disagree with that interpretation. Hog Farm (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: The nomination statement is poorly argued, but consider the following; leaders of each of a dozen or so "large" countries make a dozen or so visits of state every year. Most of them will receive quantities of press coverage in each country. Are we to write articles about each of those? Does the coverage this visit has received exceed that of other visits of state so substantially? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vanamonde93: Normally, I'd say the best way to handle that situation would be to create an overall article for each countries relations. However, there's quite a bit of sourcing in reliable, independent sources for this event. If all of the coverage was from one country, that might give pause. But we've got coverage from an Indian source, several from the US, and The Guardian from the UK. WP:NOTNEWS can be invoked, but don't know with certainty that this is an event that won't generate lasting coverage - we just don't know right now. I have no prejudice against a renomination in 6-8 months if this turns out to be a one-hit wonder, but right now I think there's enough coverage from a large enough geographic scope to keep for now. Hog Farm (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has a number of articles dedicated to protests, marches and rallies about Donald Trump. March 4 Trump is one such example. This article is a stub right now and lacks promotional content contrary to the nom's claim. --RaviC (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to fall under not news guidelines. Newspapers cover events like this, but we do not need to cover them event by event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important event in foreign relations of both nations and following riots.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant foreign visit by leader of major country. Obviously notable, and the argument that it's not because we don't know the impact yet is ridiculous - by that logic we can't have an article about any event until years out. Smartyllama (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies the basic criteria to remain. As pointed about above. While it is still a stub, it can be expanded. There are several instances of controversies about the even itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Sources routinely report on international diplomatic visits, so routine coverage doesn't help establish notability. We don't need a new article for every time a politician visits another country. — Wug·a·po·des 01:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. It's a routine state visit. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Visits of state by leaders of large countries always get extensive press coverage. An equivalent amount could be written about any of Modi's visits to the US, or about many of Trump's visits abroad. As such I do not see how this clears WP:NOTNEWS. At least a part of the coverage derives from the Delhi riots occurring at the same time; but that fact and associated commentary can be covered at North East Delhi riots, and does not require a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Hog Farm passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID significant foreign visit by leader of major country the only question arguably is whether it meet WP:LASTING in the long term ,that is tough to say at this point .But as of now it is clearly keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#India or weak keep. This seems like a notable event, and many WP:RSs exist on Trump's India visit, including those analyzing it, the rally, and their importance (I'm surprised the WP article is so lightly sourced) -- thus, I oppose deleting it outright. Since the rally is part of Trump's visit to India, I think making it a redirect is most appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS per Vanamonde93. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flumph[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - only mentioned in listicle sources such as "Dumbest Monsters Ever" and "Weakest Monsters Ever" - lacks WP:SIGCOV and most sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to prove how this meets the WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or failing that merge and redirect. That secondary sources are "listicles" does not mean that the do not count. As the quote shows, the flumph is more than just mentioned - though, granted, the treatment is not exactly long. What the secondary sources also say, including the one by Ewalt, which is not a listicle, is that the flumph is considered quite special within the D&D game by the authors. If these together are not considered to fulfill WP:GNG, a merge is still preferable to complete deletion, because bringing this special case properly based on secondary sources out can improve an article like Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Daranios (talk) 22:25, 29 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 09:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umber hulk[edit]

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

Despite being a D&D original creature, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. All mentions of the creature are relatively minor or relegated to listicles. Sources are WP:PRIMARY otherwise. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION/GNG. FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "hey! leave these iconic/unique d&d monsters alone (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shambling mound and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gelatinous cube)!" "coola there are no independent significant sources", "but, but .... surely the School of Inconsequential Studies has covered it?" Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails WP:GNG, as the two secondary sources given are nothing more than passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters: The article does have secondary sources. Merging them can improve another article. What's the benefit of complete deletion? Daranios (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

′*Delete - The non-primary sources only appear to either be trivial mentions or game-guides. While searches bring up a number of mentions of the creature, none of the results are actual coverage that could be used to support any kind of encyclopedic content. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought eater[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reading the last AfD, the sources presented were extremely shoddy and entirely from listicles like "Underrated monsters" and "Dumbest monsters ever" as well as a WP:GAMEGUIDE bestiary. Not exactly an indicator of notability or relevance to a larger audience of non-fans and devotees. Fails WP:GNG as mere mentions are not enough to prove WP:SIGCOV. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Cannot locate coverage in independent RS. In previous AfD it was suggested to redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76), but that list was deleted. A possible target is Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, but thought eater is not mentioned there and I suspect that list may be deleted soon enough anyway. b uidhe 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I have mentioned in other AFDs, I really don't consider the use of D&D creatures in Paizo-published works valid for establishing notability since their status as being "independent" is debatable (as they were being used under Wizard's Open Gaming License), and there is no actual coverage, just the use of the creatures in-universe in game books. Outside of gamebooks, the only secondary sources are brief mentions or "top ten" style lists that do not offer much information that could be used to build an article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. PS. I did review the sources presented in prior AfD that they are little better than trivial fancruft (plot summaries/listicles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. There are secondary sources, which do a little evaluation of the monster. They can improve a target article like List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters which needs more secondary sources. So merging will improve Wikipedia a tiny bit, while deletion does not. And we are here to improve Wikipedia, are we not? Daranios (talk) 21:58, 29 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winged serpent (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable monstercruft that lacks significant mentions in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons. Seems like a no-brainer. — Hunter Kahn 15:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned anywhere in Dungeons & Dragons. Per WP:ASTONISH, it would be a bad redirect, as with every other monster you redirected there. I advise reverting them all unless they are mentioned in the content of the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent RS coverage. Do not redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, not mentioned there. b uidhe 16:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A rather minor D&D creature. I searched for sources under both the "Winged Serpent" and "Flying Snake" names, and came up with nothing in reliable, secondary sources. There is no indication of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 28 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Ursani School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS coverage found. b uidhe 16:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indepedent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disenchanter[edit]

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

Lacks significant mentions in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG as a non-notable fictional element. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outside of the one brief entry in the top-ten humor article already in the article, I am not finding any significant coverage of this creature outside of uses in game books. There is no actual coverage that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No need to retain content. TTN (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. No benefit in removing the information based on the one secondary source, minor though it may be. Daranios (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shree namramuni maharaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have been written in advertising manner. Abishe (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy G11. b uidhe 20:48, 27 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 and redirect to Terrorism in Canada#Islamist extremism. Sandstein 09:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Toronto hammer attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Is there a portmanteau article where the very short para this event deserves can rest? TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody will come up with WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments; should they cite the 2020 Streatham stabbing I would point out that this event led to a change in the law.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an ongoing event, as the investigation is at the beginning and the details of the attack will be released soon. This is a terror attack similiar to the murder of Ibolya Ryan, in which a single and random person was target for terrorist motives. Wait for updates and news, they will be added to the page. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBH those sounds like arguments for deletion not keeping it, sounds like you're arguing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Murder of Ibolya Ryan for deletion on the same grounds; all the coverage relates to the event or the trial.; in this case the dust has settled and there is no evidence of lasting coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see larger notability or significance, a local murder is just that. Hard to imagine it having lasting significance but if it does then the page can be very easily recreated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Someone needs to stop this guy, going on a deletion spree. 11S117 (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Canada#Islamist extremism, where it is already mentioned. That's quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. if it proves to have significant and lasting coverage, then an article can be written, but not on he basis of the present sources only. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Even if consensus does arise that this is more than an "alleged 'terrorist act'", that still doesn't make it automatically notable. Daß Wölf 19:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per all comments above. --JBL (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not significant or notable because this happens all the time. Analog Horror, (Speak) 21:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominator I'd go with the redirect suggested by Clarityfiend, a satisfactory outcome.TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Allow recreation if it meets WP:LASTING. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Terrorism in Canada while it's mentioned there. No evidence of lasting significance. Also, an essay plug: User:Rhododendrites/Don't assume lasting significance for crime articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symkaria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails to establish notability. The couple keeps in the No Consensus AfD were just WP:ITSIMPORTANT with vague assertion of sources. TTN (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe, where it is already listed since they are WP:CHEAP. -2pou (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, does not seem notable on its own. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 28 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of sources covering in detail. DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of BEFORE (ie talk page discussion, PROD or reasonable search attempts). AfD is not cleanup. Multiple sources available, easily passes ORG.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Rajendran, S. P. (2012). The Fire Against Untouchability: Struggles and Experiences of the CPI(M) & TNUEF in Tamil Nadu. Bharathi Puthakalayam. ISBN 978-93-81908-47-1.
^ "State creating a dalit-less Chennai: Evicted residents". The Times of India. 5 September 2014.
^ Lobo, Shalini (2 September 2019). "Social activists urge Tamil Nadu government to take action as 2 incidents of discrimination against Dalits surface". India Today.
^ "'Rajini should be careful in airing views'". dtNext.in. 26 January 2020.
^ "Dalit Political Imagination and Replication in Contemporary Tamil Nadu". Economic and Political Weekly. 47 (36). 2012.
^ Still, Clarinda (2015). Dalits in Neoliberal India: Mobility or Marginalisation?. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-34163-5.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn passes WP:NORG and without going into sources in theTamil language .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn. Actually there are a lot of news pieces about it. --MarioGom (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ferrell[edit]

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

Makes a claim of significance (i.e. playing in the NFL) but provides no evidence for it. Is effectively an unsourced BLP as the one source is 404. I have had a quick look and can find nothing, but possibly someone with more knowledge of AmFootball may have more luck? Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment After a check, Ferrell did not play in a professional gridiron football game (NFL, CFL, Arena, etc.) and fails WP:NGRIDIRON. I haven't had a chance to look in-depth at sources to help pass WP:GNG, but it should be noted that he was commonly called "Pat Ferrell" during his playing career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen enough significant coverage to pass GNG, so my !vote is delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is in terrible shape. If it is kept, it desperately needs some tender loving care. Offensive lineman almost never receive significant coverage of the type required to satisfy WP:GNG, but Ferrell does receive some. Examples include this, this, this – all from the same newspaper (Hattiesburg American) in the small city where Ferrell played college football. As GNG speaks in terms of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I'd expect to see significant coverage in at least one other source. If others turn up such coverage, I could be persuaded to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is basically a hoax because it makes a false claim. He evidently played collegiate football, but was not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he's notable but I don't know how you could possibly think it's a hoax. If he did indeed play college football, then the article is accurate. Smartyllama (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to think this is a hoax, but I don't see any notability measure either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably not a hoax, Ferrell was likely a practice squad player or a training camp invitee during the 1988 and 1989 seasons, but also not notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [7] [8] [9]. Is apparently deceased for what it's worth, so his obit might count for notability as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am unconvinced that the sources offered constitute significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the best positions of Albania in the Olympic Winter events[edit]

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

So far, two people have represented Albania at the Winter Olympics, without any success. This list is not on a notable subject, and there are no sources about the actual subject (although of course there are sources about individual results, which can be compiled into this list). Fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Albania at the Olympics is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is also bordering original research. The following other articles should be considered as well:

List of the best positions of Albania in the Olympic Summer events

List of the best positions of Spain in the Olympic Summer events

List of the best positions of Spain in the Olympic Winter events

List of the best positions of Great Britain in Winter Olympic events. Ajf773 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page isn't really needed as it's basically just a bunch of random stats that no one would be interested in. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/all the above. I've seen that Spanish list before and thought it should be deleted too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have individually nominated the other four articles for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed per nom and the other comments above. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Central Public School, Patsa[edit]

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

This article doesn't cite any independent sources. Coverage for this school is not available on the internet. Every secondary school doesn't require an article on Wikipedia ((WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)). Not following WP:ORG. GargAvinash (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks reliable 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find sources that satisfy GNG. b uidhe 17:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (actor)[edit]

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

Most of his roles are unnamed bit parts. I doubt that he would have an article if his brothers weren't famous but notability isn't inherited. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of minor roles does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the subject can make a case for WP:NACTOR: he had starring roles in Time Trap (film), Church Ball and Druid Peak (though the latter two films are less notable), and supporting roles in Bottle Rocket (film), Fever Pitch (2005 film), Idiocracy (film), Calvin Marshall, Whip It (film) and The Big Year. He also co-directed The Wendell Baker Story with brother Luke. In terms of WP:GNG, however, many of the articles I've found mention or discuss the subject with respect to his brothers:

–Most reliable sources:

→https://ew.com/movies/celebrity-third-brothers/?slide=5944590#5944590 – Entertainment Weekly, briefly stating that the subject is the older brother of Owen Wilson and that he works as an actor and director

→https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-druid-peak-movie-review-20150110-story.html – LA Times, mention in Druid Peak review

→https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-capsule-time-trap-review-20181101-story.html – LA Times review of Time Trap, at the very least a mention, I couldn’t access the whole article

–Sources where there is no general consensus as to reliability:

→https://www.businessinsider.com.au/actors-in-most-wes-anderson-movies-bill-murray-owen-wilson-2018-3?r=US&IR=T – Business Insider, brief discussion of the subject

→https://www.businessinsider.my/celebrity-brothers-and-sisters-2017-7/ – Business Insider article about celebrities' siblings that we don’t know exist, says he has had minor parts in films, ironically the alleged non-notability of the subject makes him notable in this article

→https://screenrant.com/idiocracy-weird-facts/ – discusses him in reference to his part in Idiocracy

→https://screenrant.com/wendell-baker-story-movie-owen-wilson-family-actors/ – discussion regarding The Wendell Baker Story and other projects with his brothers

→https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/owen-wilson-he-s-charming-he-s-relaxed-and-he-talks-real-slow-1.2339161 – claims that his performance in Druid Peak has been well-received

I realise these aren't the greatest sources, but, combined with his significant and numerous roles in very notable films, I think there is enough for a "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 08:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what Dflaw4 has shown I think there should be enough to pass GNG, Govvy (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now updated the page, adding the above sources as well as some text. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dflaw4's additions. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Dflaw4's shown sources and per WP:BASIC that states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I think the combination of the "filmography" and multiple sources gives evidence of notability. Otr500 (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dflaw4. _SUPER ^ASTIG 06:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Janata Party. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamizhaga Janata Party[edit]

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

Political party that fails WP:ORGCRIT Unsourced and cant find any source meeting the criteria. DBigXrayᗙ 13:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 13:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 13:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the party had 2 seats the the TN Legislative Assembly, see http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/9th_1989/09_06.pdf --Soman (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 08:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge: (to Janata) (I was between a between weak delete and a very very weak keep). The keep relies on the information Soman has foundThe article content is simply less than a directory entry which tells us virtually nothing but a couple of simple facts and no clue whatsoever as the reasoning for its existence. Actually I'd very much be wanting to do redirect; trawling the history Janata is just about a viable target (Djm-leighpark - scanning for another AfD): Djm-mobile (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Journal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be a non-notable publication of...less than stellar repute as of late.

I can find no meaningful coverage of it in archives (including printed newspapers), other journals or books. The existing sources are...not great and clearly not independent. As an example this tech crunch piece has no author, this is a press release, this is really just about a data breach.

I don't know if it was originally the case but it doesn't appear that they have any editorial standards or oversight, though that's a discussion for WP:RSN for its use here. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, a publication's reputation is not part of our notability criteria for media per se — a media outlet can become notable because of its unreliability, as witness Breitbart and The Drudge Report, if its unreliability makes it a subject of reliable source coverage about its unreliability. What's more definitive here, rather, is that the sources just aren't doing enough: TechCrunch is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all; the G&M "Interview with Christopher Hogg" is a Q&A interview in which an executive who's directly affiliated with the company is speaking about it in the first person, which isn't a notability-making source as it's not independent of the topic; the Metro piece is just a really short blurb that isn't substantive enough to count as a data point toward WP:GNG if it's this close to the best you can do; and the G&M "does your backup need backup" isn't so much notability-building coverage about the company — it just uses a data breach at the company as an anecdote in a column whose core subject is the general concept of how important it is to back up your business data, which is not the same thing as notability-building coverage. So the sources present here just aren't getting it over WP:GNG at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 08:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearcat. I have nothing further to add. Non-notable born-digital blog and online message board. Doug Mehus T·C 16:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see references to this site at Media Bias/Fact Check, at Crunchbase, at Bloomberg, at MuckRack... the list goes on. There's a short profile of the founder and his company that runs the site here. The four citations that are already in the article seem legit to me.

I think this article contains valuable info, especially since our article specifies that Digital Journal relies on user-submitted content, and therefore, it's not suitable for use as a reliable source. That's exactly how I came across this discussion - I was searching for a source for another article and came across an article hosted by Digital Journal. When I saw this article, I knew I could not use this publication as a reliable source. So if we delete this article, we do a disservice not just to Wikipedia readers, but also to editors that may not be familiar with it. Andrew Englehart (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Englehart: Regarding those sources, in turn: (1) Media Bias Fact Check LLC is a sketchy source, to say the least, not unlike Media Matters I suspect; (2) Crunchbase is essentially a self-published source, a directory of sorts in which anyone can add companies and it's semi-moderated by TechCrunch staff and appointed moderators (think: Wikipedia with edit requests for everything); (3) Bloomberg profiles are just that, profiles, compiled algorithmic-ally from multiple datasets and data sources; and (4) MuckRack, never heard of it, but again, non-qualifying reliable source. Doug Mehus T·C 00:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, for the purposes of establishing the encyclopedic notability of a topic, are not just "any website you can find that provides technical verification of information about the company": entries in business directories, for example, are not notability makers, and neither are podcasts or Q&A interviews in which a person directly associated with the topic is talking about themselves in the first person. To establish that a topic is notable enough for an article, a source has to represent journalism, from a real media outlet, that is written in the third person and analyzes the topic's significance independently of its own self-published claims about itself. That is, newspaper articles about the company and its accomplishments, books about the company and its accomplishments, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails basic notability tests and WP:WEBSITE notability. The sources provided don't meet basic test and I don't see anything better. Glendoremus (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Rony[edit]

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

lacks wp:rs, and fails wp:gng Tatsaviturvarenyam (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tatsaviturvarenyam (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarani (community)[edit]

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

A theory from one author which hasn't received any attention in reliable sources. Same author also advanced Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cebuano Visayan State, deleted for the same reasons. Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and reasons from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cebuano Visayan State. --hueman1 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Second in motion to the views of @HueMan1: and @Fram:.JWilz12345 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a thesis. Most of the sources are from Pagan himself. Other than that, I barely found anything about it. _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Is Pangan the one who created the wiki article himself? You just can't quote yourself. And where's the copy of the thesis? Is this published (or unpublished?) in a journal? This is a good thesis though but needs peer review from historians. You just can't make big claims and have it not validated and verified. Though I find some footnotes from Sala-Boza, Villanueva, ang Pigafetta's comments (the legend!) intriguing too. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Allenjambalaya: Probably not, but I highly doubt it. Seems legit eh? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Also nom has been temp blocked via arbitration enforcement. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 01:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dangi (people)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, since 2008 this has been with this one line stub, other things added are without citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey subrata (talk • contribs) Dey subrata (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't a biography, so WP:BIO doesn't apply. As per notability, I would say that the references present in the article prove the notability of the caste. The references are solid and reliable, too. The article can stay as a stub in my opinion, but the subject is definitely notable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a minority ppl in India and not a biography. I have added 8 book sources into the article. - Clearly pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. what Utopes said. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable caste. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No evidence of BEFORE; easily identifiable RSs. AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is so improve the article out of a micro stub, don't just claim it can be theoretically done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. The addition of the DNB ref seems persuasive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Martin (planter)[edit]

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

No sign of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit surprised by this. Samuel narrowly escaped being murdered as a child and went on to write a treatise on planting. He was a leading plantation owner in Antigua and as one of the references says not only did he have "a marked influence on the social and political life of Antigua" and thus "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", i.e. colonial life in Antigua. I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to read the actual page on Samuel Martin as it provides a link to the article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, specifically cited in the WP:BIO as grounds for notability. Then, I would invite you to consider rescinding this Afd before any more of your fellow editors time is wasted. Leutha (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 07:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone with a full entry in the ODNB is notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources I can access, together with the ones I can only see a bit of (like the ODNB) seem more than adequate. Guettarda (talk) 13:14, 27 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) 01:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb Cloverleaf[edit]

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

Generic highway interchange, all sources are context-free maps, no indication of notability. Deprod rationale was "per WP:USRD/NT" but while the highways themselves may be notable, interchanges are absent from that essay so....??? Reywas92^Talk 02:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all but the most famous interchanges are not notable, and this seems to be run of the moll. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—this is a basic expansion candidate using various articles from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Newspapers.com. So while the current article seems "run of the mill", this one really isn't. At worst, this should be draft-ified, but I don't see the harm in leaving the article as is. Imzadi 1979 → 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which article(s) would indicate that this not a run-of-the-mill highway interchange but a peculiar or nationally significant highway interchange, or say, that it has had major implications for other highway interchanges. Articles in local papers detailing various mundane aspects of its history won't suffice. I see articles about loose cows, a closed off-ramp, and whether it ought to be named the Cobb Web.----Pontificalibus 11:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sections of highway aren't notable unless they've garnered national coverage or are particularly outrageously controversial or something. ----Pontificalibus 11:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, per nom. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#1. No editor has recommended deletion or hard redirect. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

İkinci Ərəbcəbirli[edit]

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

Proposing a merge into stub page about the municipality Ərəbcəbirli PenulisHantu (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you don’t need an AfD discussion for this you can just go ahead and merge it. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:28, 27 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee brewery shooting[edit]

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

WP:EVENT this is a terrible but not notable case of workplace violence LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seven deaths seems significant, I believe. Also, not all information is in yet on the shooting; deleting this page within only a few hours of the event taking place is probably unjustified until we see whether anything else comes up about the details (motive, etc). That is to say: we can't deem it notable or not notable until some measure of time has passed. NomadicNom (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's too early to know all the facts, so let's wait and see how this pans out. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are multiple mass shootings which received a Wikipedia article within 24 hours of occurring, such as the Las Vegas shooting. The precedent disagrees with your stance. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - far too soon to say that this mass shooting isn't notable. Jim Michael (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely notable enough for the morbid death count reasons (most deadly this year in the US) and a workplace shooting (rather than domestic/gangland). International headline/homepage press coverage. And if we delete we will just have multiple recreating it (like I likely would have done if it was not here.) Rovastar (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, we have no way of knowing if this will be notable or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am Crystal Balling here. The amount killed often highlights a level of noteworthiness (if it was 20 killed I imagine you would not object here even with the info we have so far). Looking at other years shooting lists List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 they likely would have there own articles for 6 dead (often less noteworthy are family/gang shootings where this is a workplace victims), so a sort of precedent I'm following. And I did say likely as well. International rather then just local coverage (BBC in UK, etc) on the homepage and international coverage which give more weight to noteworthiness, etc. Rovastar (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per reasons summarised by Rovastar. Autarch (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have to keep in mind that we have a List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020. Right now the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage without going in depth into the suspect, or if this will have a WP:LASTING impact. Will deleting this article now, and recreating it later if it passes WP:N really be that much of an issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per NomadicNom, too soon to say notable or not. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NomadicNom. Loksmythe (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have been six deaths, including the gunman. That's a pretty notable amount. Not all the facts are in, so we should wait and see to make sure if there are any other notable elements. Racially-motivated shootings with less deaths in Germany have been retained for their notability. Also, it's definitely not "too soon" to publish an article about it, as multiple mass shootings have received Wikipedia articles within 24 hours of their occurrence. Other users have said that since we don't know if this shooting is notable enough, we should delete the article and reevaluate the situation later, because there's nothing to go against deleting it. Here's the problem: there's nothing to go against keeping it, either. Why should we flip the switch if there's uncertainty? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now: I created the article thinking the death toll would be higher, but for now, I don't see any real urgency to delete this at the moment. I'll have to point out, as precedence for these kinds of articles, Orlando factory shooting, which hasn't been subject to this kind of discussion ever since its creation nearly three years ago. Love of Corey (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too early nom. Right now with the sources, media attention, death count this passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable. It received tonnes of headlines. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable source coverage is considerable. For example "In a city renowned for its brewing tradition, the sprawling Molson Coors campus was an icon in itself, a place known for decades to Milwaukee locals as the old Miller Brewery. But on Wednesday afternoon, officials said, a worker still in his uniform stormed the facility and began shooting."[10] The setting itself is described as being iconic. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had this mass shooting happened at a church, school or shopping centre, the article would be much longer, it would have far more editors & there would be much more media coverage. The shooter having been a former employee who shot his former colleagues doesn't & shouldn't mean it's less notable. Jim Michael (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be more media coverage if it occurred at a Church, school or shopping center? Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the reactions to previous mass shootings that what I've said is true. The media & general public are much more horrified when mass shootings take place at those locations. When a (former) employee shoots his colleagues or a person kills their family at home, the media & public usually aren't anywhere near as interested. Jim Michael (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of kids hanging out in those places, makes parents anxious and clicky, especially if their kid might be there. If you're the sort of kid who hangs out at a brewery on weekdays, your parents probably already don't care. Mines, factories, strip clubs...same effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what is it with this apparent wikiobsession amongst some editors to get these tragedies on WP so quickly? according to the article, this occurred around 2.30pm on the 26th, the article was created on 9.55pm of the 26th how can this not be WP:NOTNEWS? how can this meet WP:NNEWS ie. "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time."? also, some of the "keepers" above appear to concede this - "we can't deem it notable or not notable until some measure of time has passed", "It's too early to know all the facts ,,", "far too soon to say that this mass shooting isn't notable", "too soon to say notable or not." and so on, why not dratify this, if it proves to be notable it can then be moved back to mainspace. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A major disadvantage of creating articles days, weeks etc. after the event rather than minutes or hours after is that far fewer people will edit it & therefore the article won't be as good. Articles in draft are typically edited by far fewer people. Jim Michael (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem....as BLP violations and pre-mature jumps to "terrorism" as a motive has become all too common. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we read that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" we also have articles like Mike the headless chicken. We are constantly exercising our own discretion. How can a shooting at a Molson Coors Beverage Company in Milwaukee, killing 6 people, not be notable? Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge or redirect - Keep, or merge to List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2020. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a significant mass shooting and the deadliest in the US so far. Gianluigi02 (talk), 28 February 2020
Keep: There is no legitimate argument to delete this article. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would point out that if someone can come up with a reason to justify removing this, at least a dozen or more other similar articles would need to be nominated. Perhaps some more rigid guidelines about what qualifies as 'notable' in this increasingly common space of news should be considered. CNN, even with everything else going on, covered this for a day. --DanielNuyu (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it made national news for some days, and was discussed by major Presidential candidates. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jason Corbett[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Meatsgains^(talk) 01:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. An encyclopedia is not a police blotter. --JBL (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG --BonkHindrance (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom, fails GNG and Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. Also, to Joel B. Lewis, I hope you don't mind that I re-formatted your comment a little for visual clarity on the page. If you do, I apologize and obviously feel free to change it back. Waggie (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Waggie No problem, thanks. I also hope that you don't mind that I've closed your bold tags :). --JBL (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Of course keep. This is a no-brainer. 11S117 (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above is from page creatorCertainly a no-brainer. It fails WP:CRIME.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, and did not have lasting major consequences or receive non-routine significant coverage so does not meet WP:EVENT. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These kind of articles have happened in the past and they don't need to be here. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable crime.TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Man[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT. Sources all stem from a single period of time in 2006-07. No long-lasting notability, term is too generic to get a good bead on searches. Prod declined without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a comment that it had been prodded and deprodded before and that seven murders is more than one event. The murders were all seperate of each other by a suspected serial killer so that makes it significant in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not notable. There is some major confusion here. The title of the article Beer Man was given to a serial killer that left beer bottles on the victims. I am not as concerned with the "prodded and deprodded" aspect. The name Ravindra Kantrole has been associated with the title but the High Court acquitted this person of any involvement in the murders due to lack of evidence. Considering this, what are we doing here? This should be speedy deleted as violating BLP policy. Otr500 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Otr500. Not seeing anything note worthy to keep this article. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I am sure this could have/should have been submitted/deleted as an article that violates our BLP policies. I have not looked at any of this but if the person named is not linked to the crimes, found not guilty or exonerated, then it should not exist as harmful to the actual subject. Surely that is why we have such policies and guidelines. I have to go to work (it happens to working stiffs) but if this is somehow relisted I will look into going that route. Otr500 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vasudev Sharma[edit]

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

Non-notable member of a Communist Party Central Committee. All the sources are to the party. ミラ P 00:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. --BonkHindrance (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, no significant coverage from secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL due to lack of election victory. Party state secretary post is not notable to deserve an article. This is yet another political spam among others. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article did not pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:POLITICIAN. Sharma is a non-notable politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:46, 27 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.