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. Opinion is about evenly divided, and there's no clear policy-based answer either way: The level of detail at which we want to cover Donald Trump's peculiarities is effectively a matter of our collective editorial judgment, given that they are clearly covered by reliable sources. But there is consensus that, if kept, the article should be substantially trimmed, e.g. to include only entries that are discussed in reliable secondary sources. Sandstein 10:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used by Donald Trump[edit]

List of nicknames used by Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I highly question the need for this article. It's been two years since the first nomination, and to be frank most of these nicknames haven't been anything more than a flash in the pan. The vast majority of these "nicknames" are just negative adjectives attached to names and are more aptly described as insults. Admittedly some such as "Crooked Hillary", "Pocahontas" and "Little Marco" have been widely discussed but most of this list is composed of borderline BLP violating flash of the pan remarks by Trump. Do "nicknames" like "My African American" or "MS-13 lover Nancy Pelosi" have any long term relevance or notability?

Not everything Trump tweets or says is notable and worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia article. Neither are most of the numerous WP:NEOLOGISMs he comes up with.

Perhaps some coverage of Trump's nicknames is appropriate in another article on Trump's social media or a new article about Trump's nickname usage in general. A list of every adjective + first name combo Trump's used that's been mentioned on a news site isn't the right way to cover this though. Think about it this way: if instead of tweeting "adjective + first-name", Trump instead tweeted "first name is an adjective derived noun!" would we have a list of every time Trump said "John Doe is crooked" and the media covered it? If not, why cover all the times he says something like "crooked John Doe"? Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim. There's enough coverage of Trump's giving nicknames to people to pass WP:LISTN (in fact, it's been noted that that's a primary method of his). However, this list stands inclusion criteria. Entries such as names used long before Trump was even born, entries for people who don't have an article, and entries that can only be sourced to Trump's tweets should probably go. I think there's a WP:LISTN pass here. Also, if this one goes, then List of nicknames used by George W. Bush should go, too. Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOG. I note that the previous AfD had plenty of keep !votes based on the recognition that he is quoted as using nicknames, and suggesting this makes them notable. I think such keep !votes are likely to happen again. Many entries on this list fail WP:SUSTAINED but even if individual entries gain widespread and sustained coverage, the question is not whether the entries are notable but whether a list of those entries is notable. To demonstrate that the list is notable, coverage should focus on why this, as a collection is notable. Otherwise the entries are only notable in the articles on the recipients of the nicknames. I cannot find any clear evidence that the collection of nicknames used by this individual is a notable subject, so it is clearly a delete. Yet I would be persuaded to change my view if, for instance, there were WP:RS looking at his use of nicknames as a matter in its own right. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sirfurboy: [1] from the Columbia Journalism Review and [2] from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are RS that describe Trump's use of nicknames as a separate phenomenon. There seems to be a WP:LISTN pass here, and I can look for more examples, too. I found these two in only a couple minutes on Google. Hog Farm (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So these articles and the articles linked below are press reports looking at Trump and his propensity to use nicknames as a political weapon. They are good evidence that he does this, but I find myself still unclear how they make an exhaustive list of all such nicknames as notable in its own right. They could equally be evidence of notability for a section on the Trump article or an article about using nicknames in general. Much better, however is a single paper (rather, a published Master's thesis) that looks at the issue as an academic interest, particularly in terms of Trump's election strategy. It even sources this page. the thesis is here.[3]. I don't think the presentation of this list is the best way to do it, and I still think it is indiscriminate. It would be better, in my opinion, as an article rather than a list. Yet it is sourced and notable after all. Deletion is only concerned with those matters, and trimming, clean up or rename arguments a matter for article editors. I feel I must therefore change my view to a reluctant keep -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Sirfurboy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Heavily trim. As mentioned above, this easily passes WP:LISTN; multiple news organizations have written articles about the President's use of nicknames as a whole, which is sufficient for WP:GNG. However, a large number of these nicknames have not seen more than transitory press coverage, and should be removed. Nonetheless, there are some that the President has used continually over a sustained period of time, as the nomination acknowledges. It remains to be seen whether there are enough for a standalone list, but it would be proper to try a trim before nominating this list again. Nobody in this discussion claims to have attempted it, so default to keep for now. --NYKevin 18:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @NYKevin:, by what criteria would you propose keeping vs. trimming content? What is "transitory press coverage" versus more sustained coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: This is something I would expect to be worked out on the talk page via the usual consensus-driven process. In general, I would expect the discussion to converge on criteria which involve the amount and substantiality of press coverage over an extended period of time (analogous to how we decide WP:BLP1E), but other Wikipedians might have different ideas from me. It would be inappropriate for AfD to dictate those rules now. --NYKevin 04:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:RECENTISM / WP:10YT concerns. Just because he has tweeted these things does not mean we need a whole Wikipedia article cataloging them. Most of these are hardly "nicknames" anyway. They're just insults. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the use of a nickname is notable enough it can be included in the main article, otherwise it is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN with ample coverage in reliable sources - for instance [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and many, many, more that I don't feel like listing because I'd literally be adding citations all night long and I don't have time for that. Clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sirfurboy, Smartyllama and the list given by Carrite in the first nomination. By all means prune it appropriately. As for the suggestion that the similar List of nicknames used by George W. Bush should be deleted, it's been here a long time apparently without challenge until now, and was featured in a DYK (Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2004/August#10_August_2004). – Fayenatic London 09:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My opinion of both Donald Trump as a human being and of this article's notability has not changed. Clear GNG pass, as I made amply clear with evidence last time around. It follows again. Carrite (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some evidence for a GNG Keep: "Trump's nicknames for rivals, from 'Rocket Man' to 'Pocahontas,'" Fox News. Carrite (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "It's not just 'Rocket Man.' Trump has long history of nicknaming his foes," USA Today. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "The running list of President Trump’s nicknames for political rivals," New York Daily News. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "From 'Sleepy Eyes' to 'Rocket Man', the list of nicknames Trump has invented," Singapore Straits Times. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "Presidential name-calling: What 'Little Marco' has to do with 'Rocket Man' (and nuclear weapons)," CNN. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "Did Trump nickname people in school, too?," NBC (video). Carrite (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "Trump's nicknames for rivals, from 'Rocket Man' to 'Crooked Hillary.'" TownHall.com. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "No, Donald Trump Is Not Good at Nicknames," Slate.com. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "An illustrated guide to the weird names Trump called his rivals," Revelist.com. Carrite (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "'Crooked Hillary,' 'Lyin' Ted Cruz': How Donald Trump Picks His Disparaging Nicknames for the Other Election Players," People magazine. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - let's not feed the ego. Not everything about this famous man is notable. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/restructure Yes it's well established that Trump makes lots of crude nicknames, no we do not have to list every instance they were used in a single tweet. Carrite's sources can be incorporated in other ways. Reywas92^Talk 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Cobbling a list of nicknames is not encyclopedic. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I guess the tens of thousands of visits to the article say the article or list is relevant. A valid rational for keeping would be WP:LISTN. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources as listed above satisfy GNG on Trump's use of nicknames. The article could however use some trimming/cleanup to remove all primary sources (Tweets, etc.), potentially only keeping entries that have independent commentary on them. We could look at this again after that occurs. The article got 297,210 pageviews in the last thirty days so deletion (or even a hard redirect) will cause significant disruption in terms of broken incoming external links etc. Some of the delete votes read as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, well I also wish there was no need for this page. buidhe 02:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, show's Wikipedia's liberal bias and slanderous lies. 174.53.226.13 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol. He has said and tweeted all of these things. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, add inclusion criteria While I have only contempt for what Trump is and does, the list topic is clearly notable. That's been proven over and over again. Just as clear is that the list needs explicit inclusion criteria. As almost all of the entries are slurs directed against living persons, the list should be restricted to entries that are listed in sources that discuss the list topic. That should pretty much take care of the criteria @Hog Farm: proposed. Paradoctor (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Heavily trim: This article is getting out of hand -- I'm not inherently opposed to keeping such an article, but most of these examples are terms (not even nicknames, e.g. "chosen one") that Trump only used once, and not in the sense of giving a nickname for himself or others. If this article is confined only to actual nicknames (Sleepy Joe, Crooked Hillary, Crazy Bernie, etc.) that Trump has used more than once, then I can support keeping it. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - this is an unprecedented phenomenon in American history. Mimihitam (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While the fact that he uses derogatory nicknames might be notable, a precise list of them is not Wikipedia material. This list suggests that the act of giving negative nicknames to people is somehow new or original._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this topic has clearly received enough attention to pass WP:LISTN, though it needs serious trimming. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ZXCVBNM. --Bduke (talk) 08:54, 8 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) 02:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lewelling, Milwaukie, Oregon[edit]

Lewelling, Milwaukie, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN neighborhood of very small city. Searching turns up very little, mostly real estate listings and other machine-generated junk. Most of the article is unsourced or appears to be OR. Ordinarily, I would say Merge a neighbohood to the city (Milwaukie, Oregon) but there is not enough sourced info to Merge and the city article is doesn't cover individual neighboorhoods. MB 02:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MB 02:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MB 02:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GMaps shows several neighborhoods of Milwaukie: while they may certainly be listed in the main article there's no notability requiring the need for separate articles here for a small city per Geoland2 Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. does not meet WP:GNG, can be included in Milwaukie Alex-h (talk) 14:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Film Consortium San Diego[edit]

Film Consortium San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

San Diego Film Award for Best Feature Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Diego Film Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Like it's partner event, San Diego Film Week, this isn't notable. It's just another attempt to discretely spam these non-notable events. This is of dubious notability at best and has been discretely spammed throughout wikipedia for the last two years but I can find no significant coverage and what little coverage is found, is hyper local. No evidence this meets WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG and is just a minor regional event. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It should be noted that the two major editors for this article have been blocked due to undisclosed COIs. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and BonkHindrance. If not deleted, it should be moved to draft space ASAP. --MarioGom (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate and reference that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:46, 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. Keep for disambiguation purposes is not a valid rationale in the absence of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Morgan (novelist)[edit]

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

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

Except for the link in the article I haven't found any other mentions. Therefore the subjects fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR. Less Unless (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the pragmatic grounds that this pseudonym needs to be distinguished from UK romance writer Diana Morgan (writer). PamD 12:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If, for some reason, they need to be distinguished from the other Diana Morgan, then a note of their existence can be added to Diana Morgan (writer). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 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) 02:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Schear[edit]

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

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

Per WP:SOAPBOX, most of the material is written by Tschear, which could be inferred to be Theo Schear. (Most images and files on the page are contributed and attributed to Tschear.) Much of the material on the page states personal and professional details of no notability. Per WP:GNG, most citations either do not mention Schear or are from personal websites/Facebook/Twitter. Per WP:FILMMAKER, credits detail either minute roles in larger productions or large roles in minute productions. – BriefEdits (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google turns up absolutely no independent significant coverage of him. Completely fails WP:N, even more than six years after the article was created. And, yes, it does appear to amount to the use of Wikipedia as a web host in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. This article really slipped through the cracks. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Oh, this is cute. From the article, "The project, titled Carpe 3Diem, contests the subjective notion of Notability included in the Wikipedia guidelines and encourages the public to take control of their digital legacy." This is footnoted to the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It's like a dare. Maybe there'll be a follow-up project with this discussion at its core. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability fail. Does not pass criteria for WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER. This non-encyclopedic PROMO article is likely WP:COI developed by several SPA IP accounts and as noted above in nom. Many refs are unverifiable, or are blogs or social media. Netherzone (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Netherzone, Largo, and the nom have covered the relevant points. While I believe the proposed CSD G11 is also perfectly accurate, I'd prefer we close the AFD so its unambiguous that the topic itself is non-notable, rather than the article state being the issue. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I've removed the CSD tag. Largoplazo (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Although I'm not going to vote on this one, I have to give Tschear props for the effort he's put into this article! Pretty cool photo and signature he's got there, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:17, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Minority Janata Party[edit]

Bangladesh Minority Janata Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Every sources are routine coverages. Most of them are about its launching. And in Bangla sources, no. 3 and no. 5 is about its launching. And no. 4 is another routine coverage about the party name and its confusion with another not notable parties. The party did not take part any type of election in Bangladesh. The article fails WP:GNG. And it is not a registered party. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A party doesn't have to be active for it to be notable. This is part of the larger project of documenting political movements in Bangladesh. If there were an appropriate article about minor Bangladeshi parties of the 2010s, I would be fine merging and redirecting. -Anirvan (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Anirvan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the media coverage establishes notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: The sources are routine coverages. And Wikipedia wants siginificant coverage, not routine coverage. Even, it is an unregistered party and did not take part in any type of election in Bangladesh. Here, it does not establish here norabilty.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there appears to be plenty of Bengali language coverage in high-profile national media. --Soman (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:@Soman: coverage on high profile national media did not make any thing notable on Wikipedia. It needs significant coverage. And even every source in the article and even from google search I found, they are all typical routine coverages. Even, the party president did not pass WP:GNG or other criteria. The party did not take part any type of election also. And as you say about plenty coverage, I have to say here about SRK children, who have thousands coverage, but they are no way near of notability guideline.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPP. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:20, 7 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per S. M. Nazmus Shakib. Fails WP:GNG. ~YahyA (✉) • 16:26, 14 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. A bit of a borderline case perhaps, but the people who have discussed the existing sources have come to the unrebutted conclusion that they are not substantial enough to base an article on. Sandstein 10:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily VanDerWerff[edit]

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

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

An essentially run-of-the mill journalist. The one source provided is ok (in case anyone is confused, the source refers to the subject under her previous name, but a bit of googling makes it clear it is the same person) although not particularly in depth, but there is very little else. Often at an AFD, as a nominator, one has to try to work out what an article could look like if properly fleshed out and with the best available sources added, and see if it still fails the GNGs. In this case I don't have to because a draft is available here Draft:Emily_VanDerWerff with substantially more detail and sources and, per the very thorough analysis by Worldbruce these are still not adequate. Despite that, I still did my own WP:BEFORE and naturally as a journalist her name appears in a lot of articles but the vast majority are by her, and those that are not are film review round-up type articles that are simply mentioning her because of an opinion she gave about a film. Simply, fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Hug^syrup 09:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: Too soon (if ever). People doing their jobs does not make them notable. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vox (website) per Worldbruce's comment on the draft (which a totally different user created). When VanDerWerff meets GNG, we'll publish the draft. Until then, I think redirecting the page to the publication she mainly writes for (as of this comment) works. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of the draft article, not the stub. It's a bit borderline, but I think it establishes notability. Oppose redirection in any context given that she's at least as if not more notable for her work with the AV Club. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG, especially when the source uses the person more as a case study than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: tagging MaggieGlass as creator to encourage them to comment. Emily is probably not notable just as a journalist; being competent in your field is not the standard for notability. the best case for notability would be as transgender, but the draft is written like a normal bio, so I don't think the author intended to highlight that. And if that's the case, in the case of a borderline BLP, I think its better not to have the article at this time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment tagging Zoya888 as draft creator in the same vein. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Vox (website). Now there isn't enough verifiable content to keep this as a separate article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to note here that I oppose redirection to Vox, and even more strongly oppose merging. Merging implies, at the very least, a paragraph about her at the vox article but I see no evidence that she is a particularly notable contributor at a magazine full of interesting contributors, so this would be unjustified weight. A redirect is almost as bad partly because, as referenced above, Vox is by no means the only publication she has ever worked at (or will ever work at) and partly because it simply doesn't seem reasonable or sustainable that the names of non-notable individuals should be redirected to the articles of their employers. Hug^syrup 08:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Also chiming in with the same. It's pretty clear she's not most notable for her work at Vox, which would pretty clear to anyone who'd done any checks at all before !voting. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of current sources of the article provide " significant coverage" of Emily VanDerWerff. Cinadon36 22:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's two reliable and in-depth sources in the article right now about the subject. That meets at least bare notability for me. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1) This is not in-depth.

https://www.indiewire.com/2014/06/a-v-club-exodus-continues-as-todd-vanderwerff-becomes-voxs-first-culture-editor-126378/

This is about a third of the article right here:

"But in the meantime, it’s worth noting that this is the third major defection from the A.V. Club in the last year: Staffers Nathan Rabin, Tasha Robinson and Genevieve Koski, along with prolific freelancer Noel Murray, left to found the Dissolve with former film editor Scott Tobias and former editor Keith Phipps last June; managing editor Kyle Ryan left in April to join Entertainment Weekly; and now VanDerWerff will be gone by the end of next week. (Disclosure: I write for the Dissolve and worked with every person mentioned in this paragraph during their time at the A.V. Club.)"

2) Interview/talk, not independent coverage.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/09/731044423/the-handmaid-s-tale-and-coming-out-as-transgender Ҥ (talk) 04:52, 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. KaisaL (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Boyesen[edit]

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

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

Practitioner of what looks like fringe science psychology. Notability per WP:BIO not apparent. Essentially unsourced (WP:V). The two references are about her teachings, not herself. Created by Meco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation according to their talk page, and indef-blocked by ArbCom since 2013. Sandstein 18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable quack. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Roxy the dog, notable based on which sources? Sandstein 19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. This is a poorly sourced, typo-littered page about a person lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found two decentish sources in print, namely The Handbook of Body Psychotherapy and Somatic Psychology at Google Books & Body Psychotherapy: History, Concepts, and Methods at Google Books. The thing is I'm unsure if they're enough to establish notability, and in any case I couldn't verify the authors' credibilities either. They could all be quacks, therefore giving weight to the delete argument! I agree the article is in terrible shape. PK650 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. I simply struck my previous position above, but it seems that wasn't enough. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her work and the importance of her career has been cited and reviewed in multiple notable peer reviewed academic publications across multiple disciplines over several decades in non-trivial coverage. See:

1. Mackenzie, Vicki (Jan 8, 1978). Massage your cares away. p. 23. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
2. Bonenfant, Yvon (December 2007). Towards a politics of felt pulsation: De-disciplining voice and movement in the making of a musi-dance performance. Vol. 28. p. 39-58. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
3. Leijssen, Mia (April 2006). Validation of the Body in Psychotherapy. Vol. 46. p. 126-146. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
4. Hale, Sheila (Nov 17, 1985). Does the gut digest stress ?. p. 59. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
5. Cinque, Ralph C. (May–June 1996). Chiropractic: The Victim's Perspective. Vol. 13. p. 28(4). ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)

These in conjunction with the sources found by PK650 are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree per 4meter4. Idolmm (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have a pass of WP:N thank you 4meter4 Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 9 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 10:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Ballesh[edit]

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

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

Does not satisfy musical notability guidelines or general notability. Google search shows that he exists, but the coverage is for playing with his father, and notability is not inherited. Previously found not to be notable in 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:NMUSIC ,WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG.Please note the subject performed only with A. R. Reihana in 2017 and not with A. R. Rahman and his winning a grammy or oscar has nothing to do with the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.WikiAviator (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. He has only received trivial, passing mentions to date. Dorama285 19:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I did find one good source, but not sure if this is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. See "Voice culture, playback singing drive Hindustani learning."(Chennai), The Times of India, Dec 27, 2016. Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 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 keep. Sandstein 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vent-Axia[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP as written due to lack of substantive sources, and I was not able to find anything additional. Being an old company is not a claim to notability by itself. shoy (reactions) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability arises from the invention of the electronic window fan and not the age of the company. ^[1] Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Vent-Axia#History section is lacking in detail. This OUP book could help enhance the history during the 1990s if some details about the prior history (APV?) and subsequent history ([20], [21]) can be found and blended. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage is significant enough, and it's a well known brand. Peter James (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. See the following peer reviewed sources:

1. Silverman, Suzann ; Cinguina, Jennifer (July 1994). Waves of investment; More than hot air. Vol. 7(7). p. 84. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Service, M.W (1969). The use of insect suction traps for sampling mosquitoes. Vol. 63(5). p. 656-663. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
3. Senave, Marieline ; Reynders, Glenn ; Sodagar, Behzad ; Verbeke, Stijn ; Saelens, Dirk (5 August 2019). Mapping the pitfalls in the characterisation of the heat loss coefficient from on-board monitoring data using ARX models. Vol. 197. p. 214-228. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Walker, David (March 2014). ON TOP OF THE WORLD?. p. 22-27. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 4meter4. The firm also appears in the OUP book A Long Time in Making (edit: which I realise AllyD already mentioned above), a history of Smiths Group, which bought Vent-Axia in 1992; the book also refers to it as then being "the leading commercial fan manufacturer". If not keep, then Merge into Smiths Group. YorkshireLad (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Striking previous Delete !vote. I do not have access to the references posted by 4meter but given that they are described as peer-reviewed sources and that they contain in-depth information on the company, plus the book reference posted by AllyD previously, there is a high probability that multiple references exist that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do these sources provide WP:ORGDEPTH? If they don't, a merge might be more appropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 12:18, 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.

Automatic train protection[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn—on reflection, having removed the list, what remains seems to be a viable stub. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

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

Article is almost entirely a list of accidents allegedly preventable with ATP, which is WP:OR—the sources just cite that the accidents happened, not possible causes/prevention. No such sources seem to exist: there is a list of accidents in the UK that could have been prevented, from the House of Commons Library, but, per a discussion on the article's talk page, most of those shouldn't be included as they're before the technology for ATP existed. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but change: I don’t think the article should be deleted. I would say maybe delete the unsourced entries on the list and add more information discussing the technology itself. Slender (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effectively every entry in the list is unsourced, pretty much: I don't think any of them actually references that ATP could have prevented the accident, though I could be wrong. YorkshireLad (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify / wp:tnt - suspect BR's ATP would be notable enough for a proper article, similar to we have on TVM430 and lzb, but this article is a mess. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would say the information about generic automatic train protection systems should be merged into Train protection system, with this just about BR's system known as ATP. The article can't seem to decide if it's about one or the other. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 21:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete it, but in line with what others have said, a major overhaul of the page is needed. Wolferpedia18 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've tried to fix the article by deleting the list and adding a stub tag. YorkshireLad (talk) 19:36, 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 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Harlick[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP on a dungeon master for a small company's D&D game who was also a copyeditor on two not notable books. Article is sourced to a mention in a single book of questionable RS. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to unearth additional RS other than this person's name as a byline on the products he's edited. Our BLP guidelines establish a high threshold of sourcing to protect the privacy rights of not notable individuals. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm actually not sure about this one. He has been interviewed on Engaget, which from my perspective would normally point towards notability in spite of the pedantic view that interviews don't count towards NBIO (no rational reason why the sourced information introducing an interview shouldn't have the same status as the same information would if presented by the same publisher as a brief, freestanding article, has yet occurred to me). And the multiple mentions in Appelcline point to a storied career at Hero Games (which was not some random small company, either, but a significant contributor for this field that is the object of the nominator's special disdain). Also, he was line editor of a historically important game line - and while Chetsford may be unaware of this, line editor is an entirely different role from copy editor - and second author of multiple, clearly notable books. But WP doesn't offer much guidance about the notability of second authors or line editors, so I am agnostic about this one at the moment and will leave off from !voting until the article changes or more information is presented here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Appelcline is regarded as a RS at the RSN; it is only the nominator who continues to insist that it is "questionable", as a minority of one. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete interviews do not count towards notability. He is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 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. Sandstein 10:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Airlines[edit]

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

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

Article on a short-lived airline that, at one time, operated a single, surplus Soviet cargo plane in Egypt. Article currently has one source. A standard BEFORE also finds a one-sentence mention in the Encyclopedia of African Aviation, and nothing else. Policy or consensus has not established any inherent notability for airplanes who operate a commercial service and they are bound to meet standard WP:NCORP criteria. Chetsford (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they need to have operated a commercial service to have a stand-alone article but I cant find any evidence that the Il-62 ever flew operationally for the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 10:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Balsera[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP on a game designer sourced to a mention in a single book. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) fails to locate any RS. A few non-RS mentions involve simply his name as a byline on products, or official, non-WP:INDEPENDENT bios republished on something called "rpggeek.com" and something else called "boardgamegeek.com." This does not meet our very high standards for sourcing under BLP, which are designed to protect the personal privacy of not notable individuals. There is no point in merging as there are insufficient sources to support the existing content. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV, and not enough to have a biography (where did he go to school? what other projects has he done?). Bearian (talk) 21:57, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Anthony Prescott[edit]

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

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

Article on a game designer sourced to (a) a bio on his own company's website, which is not WP:INDEPENDENT, (b) a review of one of his game's on rpg.net which simply contains his name. No possibility to merge to anything as there is insufficient WP:RS for any content within this article. A BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to unearth additional sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable game designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article doesn't explain how Mr. Prescott is notable or significant in any way. Analog Horror, (Speak) 23:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - total lack of significant coverage, "one of the creative minds behind...", no biographical details (school? other works? lead projects?). Bearian (talk) 22:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tryfon Gavriel[edit]

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

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

No coverage in independant sources. Has a fairly high Elo rating but not high enough to be presumed notable under the unofficial WP:NCHESS guidelines. He is somewhat popular on YouTube, having 105K subscribers, but there are still no sources that we can use to write an article about him.

Was nominated for deletion last week but the nominator was a sock.

– Thjarkur (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indepdent source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient coverage in third-party, independent secondary sources to suggest the subject meets the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO; also see WP:FAME. ——SN54129 13:36, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MechAmato[edit]

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

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

No sources supplied and I find only two possibly reliable and independent sources that cover it at all, one only in passing and the other fairly lightly. Fails WP:N. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, but it's also weird because the article says this series "will be launched ... in late 2019". If it was launched in 2019, then, well, there's no coverage of the sort one would expect of a notable TV series. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unsourced fandom rumours WP:NN or WP:TOOSOON at best. KylieTastic (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article is simply WP:TOOSOON. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per nom and There is no source. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thairili[edit]

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

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

Promotion of non notable poem. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically no content, and it appears that the author (editing as an IP) is the one who removed the speedy deletion tag (same IP edited the article talk page claiming to be the creator). PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be a non-notable poem written by a non-notable poet posted on a free web host. Notability is not asserted, maybe this should be speedy'd. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This doesn't meet any speedy criteria that I can think of (A7 doesn't cover poems), but there is certainly no assertion of significance or importance, no sourcing, and no indication of notability that I can see. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm a bit concerned that this was instantly and incorrectly tagged as G2 (whoever reverted that was well within their rights to do so) and nominated for deletion 8 minutes after its creation. Who knows, maybe this is a historically significant poem in the Dimasa language. I'm not sure that the newbie editor was given a chance here. Moving the article to the Draft space might have been a better alternative. Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user was given lots of advice at The Teahouse and ignored it all, there is also a draft here Draft:Thairili. A Google search comes up with very little except his blog [22]. Theroadislong (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this has neither content nor context. Also, if the poem were in some way noteworthy, I'm sure the original editor would have mentioned that; alas, they didn't. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:SNOW - no legalization nor proof of notability. There are zero scholarly references to this poem and book references of unknown quality. 22:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Bearian (talk)

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 already speedily deleted by User:Berean Hunter. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Keagon[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no significant coverage of the subject, and zero reliable sources could be found in a search. It sorely fails WP:GNG and flunks WP:NARTIST. The article does not come close to meeting notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:08, 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 merge to Topock, Arizona. (non-admin closure) buidhe 06:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Paradise, Arizona[edit]

Catfish Paradise, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Moving south to the Topock Marsh, we have a place to go fishing, complete with a fishing pier and a launching ramp for your boat. That's what the Fish and Wildife Service says, too. No evidence this was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Topock, Arizona. There definitely was an unincorporated community at Catfish Paradise, as detailed here. Not exactly "legally recognized" it seems, but may pass WP:GNG and if not, WP:GEOLAND says we should merge. This might not be within the boundaries of Topock but it's near enough.----Pontificalibus 16:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually inclined to withdraw this and add the story you found to the article. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pontificalibus' find. Also perhaps WP:SKCRIT nomination withdrawn. Also courtesy ping|Onel5969 Lightburst (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969 had nothing to do with this article— that's what tripped me up when nomming the ones he did create. Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect A mobile home neighborhood on the outskirts of a more clearly recognized community is not necessarily an independently notable place. (We've AFDed quite a few of them) This is within the same ZIP code as Topock and likely had Topock addresses, just non-contiguous to the bulk of it. Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 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 redirect to Raivo Järvi. (non-admin closure) buidhe 06:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onu Raivo rännakud[edit]

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

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

No evidence this radio program passes WP:NMEDIA/GNG. A merge was suggested but without a specific target so I am at a loss as to what would make a good SOFTDELETE redirect here, and in any case there is no referenced content to merge (WP:V issue). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Radio Kuku (or Raivo Järvi): I barely found anything about the show. Therefore, it's best to consider redirecting it to its parent station Radio Kuku. _SUPER ^ASTIG 07:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding. I'm not looking for an argument here. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 07:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect to Raivo Järvi. Not much content to add. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:34, 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 Bonelli's Ferry. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonelli Landing, Arizona[edit]

Bonelli Landing, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a fairly primitive camping area on Lake Mead; all sources besides GNIS agree on this. And that's it: the park service says that the road used to run down to a ferry across the Colorado, and there's no other info and certainly no claim to a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bonelli's Ferry. According to this Bonelli's Landing was synonymous with Rioville, Nevada. The Bonelli Landing given by the coords in the article could either be a reference to this settlement now flooded following the Hoover dam construction, or to the Arizona side of the ferry. ----Pontificalibus 15:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I agree, this should be merged. I'll let this sit a day or so to see if there are objections, but if not I'll withdraw this and do the merge. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what the maps and aerials show is that the name was applied to where the shore was before the lake started to recede. Right now it is quite a bit inland. One can speculate but since the park service prefers to name its various facilities, it's likely they simply took the name of the ferry as a starting point. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - It's highly improbable that there was ever a historic "landing" on a mountain hundreds of feet above the river. Clearly a NPS landmark named after a nearby place that was inundated by the Hoover Dam. No sign that this was ever a notable "populated place". Dlthewave
• Redirect per Pontificalibus. Lightburst (talk) 17:29, 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. This option is more popular and more convincing than merging, given that the content is in fact substantially unsourced. Sandstein 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency (UK television programme)[edit]

Emergency (UK television programme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this TV programme meets WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Prod declined with a suggestion of merging, but no target was specified. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advice strand as part of This Morning; this was clearly just a segment of that show with generic first aid tips. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge When you had read the article, you could have seen that it was a program of ITV Granada, a valid merge-option. The Banner talk 14:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping User:YorkshireLad, who offered some thoughts about a potential for a related merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd argue that, for the same reason as I gave on WP:Articles for deletion/Fight Night (TV programme), merging with ITV Granada makes little sense: that page mentions only a handful of their most notable programmes, of which this is definitely not one. As Nate noted above, this appears to be, in fact, less a programme and more an advice strand within This Morning (TV programme), so I guess it could be merged there, but the list of what every episode was about would be overkill on that page. The This Morning page might warrant mention of Emergency's existence, however, since that does seem to be sourced. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I'd support a merge the target you propose, the problem is that the current 'reference' is not problematic: a non-hyperlinked entry for... I am not sure what. A web page? A name of a show...? Effectively this article is unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the citation template the source looks to be a book called Granada Television. I can't find the book online (in fact, the first result on Google is the Wikipedia page for this show…). The citation was added in the very first version of the page by User:Rich Farmbrough; Rich, perhaps you can shed some light, although as I'm asking about an edit made eight years ago it's totally reasonable if you can't! YorkshireLad (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes it's a booklet called "Emergency" published by Granada. Next time I find it I'll donate it to Internet Archive to make it more available. I believe it was shown in it's own right on ITV, as I watched it at the time, and I certainly didn't watch This Morning. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
            
            • Thank you for expanding on it, Rich; I admit as an American the structure of the ITV breakfast programming has been a confusion point (some things are in the show, some are outside of the This Morning-devoted block or in the interregnum between TM and what is now Good Morning Britian because of how the contracts were previously awarded), so confirming in a small way it existed in its own right is good here. 16:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps with mention of its existence on This Morning (TV programme), per my reply above. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge where you will. This is a poorly documented show, made worse by the fact that Emergency Ward 10 makes it hard to search for. I suspect the sources are out there, but they are hard to find, since stuff is still in copyright. I checked a few books on Granada and ITV for the era, with no success. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Merge into ITV GranadaThis Morning (TV programme) as there is so little content here. Previous to the AfD procedure, this article has been prodded in violation with WP:PRD. Please use only appropriate procedures! gidonb (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gidonb: You misunderstood how PROD works. Feel free to take this specific case to WT:PROD and ask for a review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. With a proper WP:BEFORE you could have identified a merge-option, giving a big chance on opposition. The Banner talk 18:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please learn how PROD work, as do MERGE. If you don't understand basic procedures, you really should be careful making comments here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I do remember your previous AN/I-case about your over-enthousiastic use of CSD, what now seems to have shifted to an over-enthousiastic use of PROD. Combined with bad reading, that raises concerns. The Banner talk 10:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I remember at least two AN(I) threads about your disruptive deprodding and such, and proposals of topic bans for you. Your point? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • LOL, you better tone down a bit. The Banner talk 10:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi User:Piotrus, from the link you provided it is clear that you understand very well but disregard how PRDs work and that you know that I know how these work. When you disagree with a policy there is a do and a don't. The don't is disregarding the policy. Don't do this because our rules apply to everyone. They create a convention to work with, reduce unnecessary friction among editors and create an even playfield. Your total disregard of the WP:PRD is the problem I raised above. The do is to discuss the policy. You just showed that you are doing that part. It is a good thing by itself. I'm not going to take that away from you. However, the fact that you argue the part of the rule you dislike, does not fix any of the huge havoc that you are creating throughout Wikipedia in your blatant disrespect for conventions and for your fellow editors. gidonb (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately in my view it is you who misunderstands the prods and creates havoc by challenging fellow editors who are just trying to clear likely spam and such. The last time checked Signpost had a series of aticles about dangers of spam, not about dangers of overeager deletionists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for self-identifying as an "overeager deletionist". The Banner talk 08:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is an attempt to hide behind others. However, I don't see "fellow editors" prod as bad as you do. I don't think you get it wrong either. By your own link, you know very well what you need to change in order to be able to mass prod by policy. This means that you understand that your mass prodding conflicts with policy. Wikipedia conventions and avoiding the havoc you cause aren't important enough to you. gidonb (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Keep up violating WP:NPA and you'll end up at WP:ANI. That's the last thing I am feeding you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ow, threatening because you get cornered? The Banner talk 10:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t see anything here that could even be rescued for a merge - it’s all unsourced content. I’ve not seen it, but it sounds like a series of VT inserts within This Morning, as a magazine programme. If the consensus really is a merge or redirect, I would urge doing it towards This Morning rather than ITV Granada, as that would make more sense. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is sourced, so why you claim that it is unsourced content is a mystery to me. And the source was there since 2012. I have not the idea that @Rich Farmbrough: was wrong at that point. The Banner talk 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s not sourced appropriately, there’s no way of an editor finding it if they would want to, and in any case, one primary source does not indicate notability. Please read WP:RS. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is clear that the program fails WP:GNG. Merging it to This Morning makes little sense as it was apparently also shown independently and does not seem to have played any significant role in the history of This Morning. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing of sustainable encyclopedic value here. BD2412 T 03:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reason mentioned by Pax:Vobiscum. Maybe the article creator can improve the article with more sources than WP:ATA. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:53, 12 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 Bruce Forsyth#Game show host. Nice to redirect you, to redirect you .... nice! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood or Bust (game show)[edit]

Hollywood or Bust (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this TV programme meets WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Prod declined with a suggestion of merging, but no target was specified. Further, the current two sentence substub is unreferenced, so there is no referenced content to merge (WP:V). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bruce Forsyth#Game show host as has been done with several unsuccessful UK quiz shows in the past (that is, redirected to their host's article). Nate • (chatter) 00:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge When you had read the article, you could have seen that it was a program om ITV (TV network), a valid merge-option. The Banner talk 14:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping User:YorkshireLad, who offered some thoughts about a potential for a related merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Per my reply on WP:Articles for deletion/Fight Night (TV programme), I'd argue that merging with ITV (TV network) doesn't make much sense, because that only lists a handful of the network's most notable shows. This most definitely is not one, and I think, if reference were to be maintained anywhere post-deletion, Bruce Forsyth#Game show host would be the right place, per Nate.

That said, I think a case could be made for saving this one. There seems to be coverage in reliable sources, including the BFI [23] and The Telegraph [24], though I'm not sure whether that counts as significant coverage. (It also merits a mention in Bruce Forsyth's autobiography! [25]) This is perhaps whataboutery, but I'd argue that this is no more or less notable than the other game shows described as unsuccessful on Bruce Forsyth#Game show host (namely Takeover Bid and Didn't They Do Well); consistency would suggest the same treatment should be applied to all, though I'm aware that's not always how Wikipedia works. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, through the BFI entry is just a catalogue entry, not in-depth at all. The second source does give us a paragraph to work with, it's just a paragraph, but still, it is a paragraph, so it is something. Unfotunately Google does not give me the view for the book you linked, so I can't comment on whether is coverage is in-depth, could you quote the relevant text here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This was an idea called Hollywood or Bust, a show in which I assumed the role of a film director auditioning members of the studio audience to play famous film actors and enact a scene from a famous movie […] under my direction. It was an entertaining idea and, but from some contractual problems over the format, would have benefited from a second series to perfect." Obviously not an unbiased source, coming from the host! YorkshireLad (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the book went through editing and presumably review, I am less concerned about the source being not independent, but rather, it doesn't seem in-depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bruce Forsyth#Game show host. I lean to agree with the notion that the show was sufficiently about Bruce Forsyth for him/it to be the correct target for a merger. I notice that this article has been prodded before AfDd. That is in strong violation with WP:PRD. By the results here, even an AfD was the incorrect procedure to follow (let alone prodding!). Given the available sources there is absolutely nothing that prohibits having this article. There just isn't enough content to make it in its current state wise to keep. A simple question of information stewardship that is solved by "merge to", clearly not by AfD, and definitely not by PRD! gidonb (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly do you want to merge, considering there is no referenced content here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you so desperate to destroy content? We are here to build an encyclopedia. The Banner talk 08:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Build encyclopedia? Of course. Just don't confuse encyclopedia with a listing of everything. WP:NOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am a realist, I believe that some articles can be merged or improved, instead of being destroyed. And that being unsourced is not the same as a death sentence for an article. The Banner talk 16:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you disagree even with WP:V? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bruce Forsyth#Game show host Wm335td (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bruce Forsyth#Game show host as suggested by Mrschimpf. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:00, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Wives[edit]

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

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

No evidence this TV documentary meets WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Prod declined with a suggestion of merging, but no target was specified. Further, the current two sentence substub is unreferenced, so there is no referenced content to merge (WP:V). PS. References have been added since the AfD started, through I don't think either of the two present as of the moment I am updating this comment can be called in-depth. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge WP:POINT-nomination after a faulty WP:BEFORE or even faulty reading of the article. The article clearly states that it is a program broadcasted by ITV (TV network), so it can be merged with that. The Banner talk 12:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles on TV stations don't usually contain any detail, or even list, such minor programming. Merging this there would look odd. Also, as I said, there is no referenced content to merge. The only WP:POINT here is your stalking of my prods and deprodding everything with bogus rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not stalking your PRODs, I have your PROD-log on my watchlist, due to serious concerns about your ability to PROD correctly. You are missing too many merge-options but opting for destruction instead. That is, as a PROD fails, in most cases you come with a WP:POINTy AfD... The Banner talk 14:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator mass prods articles and causes havoc at en.wiki. There may be a case for merger here but please use "merge into" to start such a procedure. Not prod then AfD! DO NOT change this into the umpteenth argument with every WP contributor who disagrees with a suggested deletion. ANY bludgeoninig below my opinion is not appreciated! See example above. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal attacks don't make for a very convincing keep arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well then stop bludgeoning behind the opinion of every person who disagrees with you! gidonb (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep violating WP:NPA, WP:ANI is not far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a lot of time. Enjoy! gidonb (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Kvng that the article meets WP:NTV. This nomination is a clear WP:BEFORE failure. As usual, I see arguments with each and every participant. This is not how AfDs should work. Please nominate more carefully, do not argue with everyone, or threaten those who are willing to share their opinion. WP is a group effort and everyone's opinion is appreciated! gidonb (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ping User:YorkshireLad: this is the last, fourth, of my current deletions form this topic. Do you think this one can be saved? Some refs have been found already, but they don't seem to be in-depth, and I am not sure how reliable is the second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the first citation isn't actually a source for the claimed fact at all. (That article uses the term "Golden Triangle" to refer to those towns, but nowhere says that the term came from the show.) The second citation is from what I'd consider a reliable source—it's a local newspaper in Reading, Berkshire. There do seem to be a number of TV reviews about the show in reliable sources, but also a lot of stuff that's about Jodie Marsh, linking back to her time on the show. I'd therefore lean towards merging with Jodie Marsh. As in the comments I've made on related ITV programmes, merging with ITV (TV network) doesn't make sense to me. YorkshireLad (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Jodie Marsh, per comment above.YorkshireLad (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Weak keep per WP:NTV, though reliable sources for this specific programme do seem a little thin on the ground. YorkshireLad (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the sources from this article to JM, since there actuall was an outstanding citation request for her appearance in Essex Wives. I am not sure if there is anything else to merge, through it's possible her bio can be expanded a little with those refs. That's about the most value I think we can extract from this... PS. The show is also mentioned with an outsanding cite request in article on Buckhurst Hill, Chigwell (same clame as YorkshireLad notes is hard to verify, I think, so it might need removing) and Loughton. That actually had two references but one mentions the show in passing and the other is rotted, so not much of help to us.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Aired on ITV (TV network) so meets WP:NTV ~Kvng (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please quote the relevant content from NMEDIA. I see "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. ". And those reliable sources with in-depth coverage seem to be missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NTV. I think that Piotrus is misreading the policy, which says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The fact that reliable sources trump geographic range is meant to be a support for keeping notable local shows with good coverage. The first sentence still says that shows with a national audience are generally considered notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Toughpigs: The UK doesn't really have a system of local media markets (at least, not any more); with the exception of local news broadcasts, every programme that airs in England airs throughout England, and in most cases in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. Does this mean that essentially all British TV programmes are notable, or am I misunderstanding? YorkshireLad (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • YorkshireLad: That's how I understand that policy, yes. Is there a reason why they shouldn't be? -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Toughpigs: perhaps not. I was about to make an argument (having just looked at tonight's TV listings) that programmes like Eating With My Ex and Millionaire Age Gap Love were unlikely to have received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG; they certainly don't currently have articles. But in fact both of those have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and it seems reasonable that someone could make and article (perhaps only a stub, but still) about either. YorkshireLad (talk) 17:44, 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 merge to The Big Fight Live. BD2412 T 14:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Night (TV programme)[edit]

Fight Night (TV programme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this radio programme meets WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Prod declined with a suggestion of merging, but no target was specified. Further, the current two sentence substub is unreferenced, so there is no referenced content to merge (WP:V). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge When you had read the article, you could have seen that it was a program of ITV (TV network), a valid merge-option. The Banner talk 14:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merging into ITV (TV network) doesn't make sense: the "Programming" section lists only a handful of the most notable shows, with few details. Listing on List of television programmes broadcast by ITV might make sense, but that article really is just a list of names of shows, and in any case the majority are shows with Wikipedia articles (and therefore independently notable). YorkshireLad (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As it stands this article fails just about every Wikipedia guideline. However it was a long standing programme and I think some mention of it should be made somewhere, maybe within The Big Fight Live article. Rillington (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Long-running TV programme on a major network. Merging to ITV makes no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long running... on a major network: not a criteria for WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Still unreferenced. Can you help find references to save this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piotrus: WP:NTV says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likely is not 100%. And in any case, it means that there are likely to be sources and such. Which we need to find. There is no automatic notability presumed for such entities. See also WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But is also not states that an unsourced article is automatically non-notable and should be removed. The Banner talk 10:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is why we have this very discussion to discuss whether it shoudl or shouldn't go. All is good in the world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To be clear I am advocating merging the article into The Big Fight Live article and not to ITV (TV network). As Necrothesp says, this was a long-running TV programme on a major network but as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus says, it is unreferenced and I think it would be highly unlikely that there are any suitable references as the programme ended many years ago. This is why the article should be merged into the The Big Fight Live article so that some mention of it can be made on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with that. The Banner talk 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a better merge target, but we still have one fundamental problem: no referenced content to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, which is why I think that the best outcome would be for Fight Night to be briefly mentioned within The Big Fight Live article. Rillington (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject fails WP:GNG and, even more importantly, WP:VERIFY. There is no verifiable content to merge. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Big Fight Live. gidonb (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia (company)[edit]

Patricia (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · for deletion/Patricia (company) Stats)

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

Doubting the topic meets WP:NCORP. While sources are cited and more could be added, none meet the level of quality needed to pass NCORP's need for coverage to be in-depth and independent. Too many sources are routine business announcements (announcing new products, sales and such), are concerned with other topics (a WP:NOTINHERITED issue), or are heavily laced with WP:PRIMARY information and as such not intellectually independent from the company. In addition, the sources cited do not posit a credible claim to longterm encyclopedic significance, and much of the recent coverage surrounding the company concerns the announcement of a crypto currency card. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - being so common, crypto-currency traders/dealers are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bearian. The company has not been discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:21, 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. Tone 19:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Cove, Arizona[edit]

South Cove, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is the first of a series of spots along the Colorado, and one of the easier ones to deal with. This is not a community: it's just a place to park and launch your boat in Lake Mead. It apparently was put in in the late 1970s because the 1974 topo doesn't show it; a 1980 aerial shows it, with just the most minimal facilities right at the (then) water line. There's a great deal of local news about it because the lake has dropped so low that the paved ramp doesn't reach the water anymore. There is a section of the lake article which talks about recreational facilities, but it doesn't list them and I am loathe to add such a directory, especially considering that it would probably be rather long. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There was never a "cove" here until Lake Mead was established in 1935, and it's been part of Lake Mead National Recreation Area since 1936 so it's unlikely that there ever would have been a community here with this name. There's no evidence that this was ever a notable populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No more than a recreational camping place.----Pontificalibus 16:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:N Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 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. Tone 19:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Pasha[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and I couldn't get much about him in Google search index. The tone of the article is also disputed with some punctuation and grammatical errors. The article cites primary sources and lacks reliable secondary sources. Abishe (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 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. Tone 19:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Khaldarova[edit]

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

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

This article should be deleted because it falls under WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. Antila333 (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete junior champions are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actually if JPL bothered to read the guideline he'd know individual junior champions are notable, but in this case she has only won the championship in the team division, and as such fails anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - junior team championship team members are not automatically notable. Sourcing is poor. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 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. Tone 19:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atomu Mizuishi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The actor has appeared in only two films and looks similar to this Afd on Rio Komiya. Abishe (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The current article shows a lead role in multiple TV shows. The Japanese page shows roles in over 20 movies. Dekimasuよ! 14:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dekimasu. ミラP 22:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article was AfD'd and closed as a "Keep" on February 7, 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atom_Mizuishi). I maintain that it should be kept. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:31, 7 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. Consensus is that this is WP:TOOSOON. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri Priyam[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has appeared in only few TV series and has apparently acted in only a single film in her career which is a kind of WP:TOOSOON to me. Abishe (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: It probably is a bit WP:TOOSOON, but the subject has been getting quite a lot of coverage over the past year in publications like The Times of India. Though the argument for WP:NACTOR is a bit weak, she has already starred in 179 episodes of Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke. I don't think deletion is necessary in this case. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there isn't a single in depth source here and the rest are utterly and completely unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete It might be WP:TOOSOON but her notability justified from some notable serials Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke, Naagin (2015 TV series) and Pardes Mein Hai Mera Dil.DMySon 10:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It looks as though I'm going to be outvoted, but here are some Times of India articles that the voters above and others can peruse:

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/yeh-rishtey-hai-pyaar-ke-actress-kaveri-priyam-i-want-my-real-wedding-to-be-as-grand-as-my-reel-wedding/articleshow/70846086.cms – discusses the subject's work

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/yeh-rishtey-hain-pyaar-kes-girl-gang-flaunt-their-upcoming-wedding-looks/articleshow/73267550.cms – discusses her work

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/kaveri-priyam-celebrates-birthday-with-yeh-rishtey-hai-pyaar-ke-co-stars-shares-fun-pics-and-videos/articleshow/71709993.cms – frivolous article about her birthday, mentions her work

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/kaveri-priyam-people-know-me-after-yeh-rishtey-hain-pyaar-ke/articleshow/74265168.cms – discusses her work and her rising popularity

The subject is certainly getting a lot of coverage at the moment, with hundreds of "google news" hits. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Delete - this is WP:TOOSOON, don't see major roles but she has acted in popular Indian serials plus won awards for her acting.KartikeyaS (talk) 07:03, 10 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) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Rajasthan[edit]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Rajasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are two sources in the article. One is self published and another is routine coverage. The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:NORG and WP:GNG do not have to be judged only on the references currently in the article. If there is scope for expansion and improvement on an article on a notable subject, then deletion shouldn't be the first recourse. BJP in Rajasthan is clearly a notable article topic, in 2018 the party obtained over 13 million votes in the state (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nota-costs-bjp-dearly-in-rajasthan-too/articleshow/67069295.cms). See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka and the expansion of that article. --Soman (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a significant party of government, this article is undoubtedly about a notable topic. It's rival, the Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee also has an article. --RaviC (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @RaviC: Thanks for your comment. First of all BJP is not a significant party in Rajsthan government. The second point is let the rival of X is Y. Y has an article. But, X can not claim that Y has an article but, why I don't have? And notability WP:NOTINHERITED. A thing should pass our notability criteria differently.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand my argument - I haven't made any such point. The party's performance in regional elections is notable enough for coverage. --RaviC (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In one word, Did the article pass WP:NBRANCH? If yes give prove. It gets coverage for being the state wing of BJP.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • S. M. Nazmus Shakib, BJP has lead governments in Rajasthan for 17 years, see List of chief ministers of Rajasthan. --Soman (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soman I know it. But it was directly claimed here as a significant party of government, this article is undoubtedly about a notable topic is not a good thing for AfD. So I commented that. We can't claim any article undoubtedly notable in AfD if proper references are not given.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only in the case of WP:BLP is there a requirement to include references in an article. There is no requirement to delete other articles due to lack of references. Unreferenced claims may be challenged and removed, but if we all agree that BJP in Rajasthan lead the state governments for 17 years and pulled over 13 million votes in the last election, there is essentially no need for an AfD. --Soman (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Soman I have mentioned earlier about votes and other info to you why it is not important.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • S. M. Nazmus Shakib: Party of government doesn't necessarily mean party in government. --RaviC (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • RaviC: In Rajsthan Congress is in power.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Obviously. But as I just said, party of government doesn't mean that. Check the Wikipedia article's definition. --RaviC (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Everyone knoews in central government BJP is in power. But, it doesn't mean that its all branch is default notable. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BRANCH. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:BRANCH. It really isn't the practice to have have articles of political parties in different states. It also complicates the process with somewhat smaller political parties unlike in the case of the US where there is just two major parties in every state. There is no Bharatiya Janata Party, Madhya Pradesh or Bharatiya Janata Party, Chattisgarh or Indian National Congress, Rajasthan, etc. Per WP:BRANCH, one should make appropriate sections for the a party in their main articles and then split from there if required. Ideally the state level politics might be added to the article for politics of that state, which is Politics of Rajasthan in this case, which is currently in a pretty bad shape. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to create them if they are as relevant as this subject. ML ⁹¹¹ 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Soman and RaviC. We have one for Congress too (see Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee) so having one for BJP is within policy. Subject meets WP:GNG. ML ⁹¹¹ 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to the parent article. This article is a very short stub and there have been no convincing arguments why this one state branch of the party should get its own (very short and content-light) article when other state branches do not. Reyk _YO! 07:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep State level analysis of political parties in India is an extraordinarily detailed area of sociological, political science and psephological academic research.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} No evidence of BEFORE carried out. AfD is not cleanup.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: In short words the subject still did not pass our notability criteria per WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BRANCH §1: As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. (emphasis mine).--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I know. So, the subject still did not pass our notability criteria because there is WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BRANCH does not support deletion in this case. The text of the guideline indicates when it is appropriate to have an article, which is clear here and quite easily revealed with a reasonable BEFORE process. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject can be redirected/deleted in that case. Not can be kept.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is clear community consensus that state-/regional-level governing parties, especially, but not limited to, those in federal governance systems, are accorded stand alone articles: eg Ontario New Democratic Party, Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch), California Democratic Party, Republican Party of Florida, Scottish Labour Party. Still no evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have Indian National Congress, Rajasthan, Bharatiya Janata Party, Uttar Pradesh? The political scenario is different in India.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So create an article Rajasthan Pradesh BJP Committee.

• Keep passes WP:GNG per Goldsztajn. The nominator clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE. A quick WP:BEFORE search of my own shows a plethora of resources including academic articles in peer reviewed journals.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Still the article did not pass our notability criteria because there is WP:BRANCH. They got coverage for being state wing of BJP.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a reasonable content fork per that policy.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ample evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources as demonstrated by Goldsztajn's references. (i.e., WP:GNG). Before it gets brought up yet again, WP:BRANCH does not supercede the GNG. WP:NORG's criteria are intended to assist in judging if it is likely for a subject to be notable. If GNG notability is established, all SNG's are either satisfied or moot. Continued WP:BLUDGEONing of BRANCH begins to take on the appearance of either unfamiliarity with the policy that is being quoted or political animus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject still fails in our notability criteria. No doubt BJP is notable. But it does not mean that its every single branch is notable. Please see WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not "please see BRANCH". Anyone directing any attention towards my !vote would see that I have clearly already "seen BRANCH" and preemptively rejected the argument. You, on the other hand, really, really should "please see" WP:BLUDGEON. Every time you tell another editor to see that which has already been rejected as an argument you expose yourself as an editor who has no concern for the actual content of the policies they quote and instead are just using them as weapons in their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You should also "please see" WP:SEALION. I hope these links help explain my reasoning here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn (talk · contribs) - based on some of the other discussions in this AFD i get the distinct impression that the nominator does not fully understand either BRANCH, the GNG, or how the notability guidelines work. Michepman (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a very significant political party in India as a whole (it is the current party of the ruling government) and is relatively prominent in the state in question. While the article itself is of poor quality right this second there are plenty of sources demonstrating that it passes WP:GNG which can be seen above. This AFD was not appropriate. Michepman (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. No doubt BJP is notable. But it does not mean that its every single branch is notable. Please see WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BJP has quite a few times been ruling party of the Rajasthan a state of India with population of over 60 million. The page relating to state unit of party is useful and necessary to discuss the political dynamics .Shyamsunder (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG . Quite unfortunate that we get into non-constructive edit wars instead of collaborating to create/ curate interesting content , in good faith. Devopam (talk) 16:52, 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.