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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vellachi[edit]

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

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

Unsourced, unknown Tamil film, which fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Excluding some non-policy supported reasoning, this comes as fairly even - one side asserts a general lack of notability and the other states there is sufficient sourcing to show it, though there weren't specific sources given or disputed.

Functionally then, neither strength of reasoning nor absolute numbers (whether !votes or just "votes") are clear enough to warrant a more specific close at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PainCeptor Pharma[edit]

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

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

Apparently short-lived and non notable company. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—I was the editor who first started the article back in 2007. I spent a bit of time today searching for and adding content and I believe there is sufficient suitabley supported content to both support keeping the article and advancing it from 'stub' to 'start' status. As a side note, I've come in on the 'delete' side of several articles I have either started or substantively added to; saying this to help dispel the notion that I'm playing favorites. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to be notable enough and they go bunch of patents. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, none of the patents cited remain active as all have lapsed and are 'abandoned'. One source indicated they had been granted a patent, but actually they had just applied, then abandoned the application ... though the investigation into patent statuses might be characterized as original research on my part (hope not, but it could be so construed). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Gods (play-by-mail game)[edit]

Battle of the Gods (play-by-mail game) (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 couldn't find anything (literally) apart from the Dragon magazine review.[1] If nothing better turns up with other search terms, then this game is not notable. Company has no article, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be a very minor game, that received nearly no coverage. That Dragon review appears to be the only source that actually ever mentioned it, and even that seems like it was not much coverage. Fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep given the publication date, a review in Dragon is a sign that this saw significant coverage elsewhere (in print-only sources). So one good source and the on-line reviews I think are just enough. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks the WP:SIGCOV needed for WP:N Chetsford (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NIS Jakarta[edit]

NIS Jakarta (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 am able to locate only one piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of this organization. And it's not clear that this is a reliable source. Does not meet WP:NSCHOOLS. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. buidhe 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I also had difficulty finding sources for CORPDEPTH. JamieWhat (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 09:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Computer Optics[edit]

Stanford Computer Optics (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)

Seems to be a non-notable electronics company. Not finding a huge amount of third party coverage. Yes there is definitley some, but it's mostly press releases and product listings not discussions on the company, major awards or significant coverage. Article was created and majority edited by an editor who appears to have a COI with the company as most of their edits were adding links about the company to other pages, this page or very specifically in their area. I don't think this company is notable, willing to be convinced otherwise though. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Bhattarai[edit]

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

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

I'm nominating Naresh Bhattarai for AFD Because the subject does not have enough online presence. And Most of the reference links attached are Youtube videos, Which any person can make and upload from different Youtube channels. Tatupiplu (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 17 January 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 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are plenty of reliable sources linked in the external links section such as this here from a news source, and some of the YouTube links are valid as they are the official videos of tv talkshows he has featured on,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: There are 20 total reference links added to the article, out of which 18 references are of Youtube, and most of the videos are deleted. The citations are for the youtube music videos from unreliable youtube channels. There are no citations found on the web for the information claimed in the article. And there is only one media link mentioning him. But overall, this person fails to meet our notability creteria WP:N - WP:RELY Tatupiplu'^talk—Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination counts as your delete vote, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Subject seems to be notable by videos. GargAvinash (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split Femur Recordings[edit]

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

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

This is an article for a record label with no notable artists. The lack of noteworthy artists suggests the label is not "one of the more important indie labels" of the sort suggested by WP:MUSIC. As far as I can tell, the label only ever put seven releases out in the period 2007-2008 (see here), and none of them were by artists that were or went on to become noteworthy. Chubbles (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• !Delete: Non-notable stacked on top of non-notables. WP:GARAGEBAND writ large. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 09:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timmi-Kat Records[edit]

Timmi-Kat Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article for a record label with no notable artists. The lack of noteworthy artists suggests the label is not "one of the more important indie labels" of the sort suggested by WP:MUSIC. The label did get a mention in Billboard in 1992, as the article notes, but it looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage of a new business rather than an actual profile (decide for yourself). The label is largely a vehicle for label founder Moon Trent (A7'ed and non-notable as far as I can tell) to release music for himself and his bands, along with a couple of compilations that have noteworthy bands on them but which don't seem to have ever garnered much notice in their own right. I PRODded this a few months ago and it was recently contested, so I am bringing it here. Chubbles (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 09:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wayne Clark[edit]

Larry Wayne Clark (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)

Seems to fail WP:NMUSIC despite having a couple notable compositions. The only reliable source that's specifically about him is the MusicRow article. Everything else is an obituary, or a passing mention in the context of other artists. While he has worked with other artists, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from rubbing elbows -- and a lot of the artists mentioned here aren't even notable either. The British Columbia Country Music Hall of Fame is not a notable organization, so his induction and awards there do not confer notability per WP:NMUSIC. This directory shows that only three of his compositions were charted singles, and none even got to top 40 on a genre chart. Searches in various music publications yield only directory results or merely credit him as a songwriter without giving any further info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Androff[edit]

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

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

Non-notable boxer that fails GNG. ².O.^Boxing 14:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 14:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 14:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My search on Newspapers.com turned up quite a few sources about Androff. While some of the sources are routine coverage, like this two-paragraph blurb from the Associated Press, I was also able to find several in-depth articles.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} While I would prefer to see more coverage outside of Minnesota periodicals, I think the news coverage is sufficient to pass the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lord Bolingbroke has turned up some sources to show the person meets GNG. Not easy since it is a pre-internet subject. Lightburst (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after 3 relists as to whether the sources provided are sufficient to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RGraph[edit]

RGraph (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)

We have a disagreement over whether this meets WP:NSOFTWARE. IMHO the coverage is insufficient: some mentions in passing and few how-to manuals both on the web and in print, but I am not seeing a single in-depth, reliable review. There is no discussion of the importance of this software, its history or such, just a few paragraphs here or there about how to code with it, effectively a manual. No awards, either. Does it merit a stand alone article on English Wikipedia or not? Thoughts appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view: I consider this generally meets WP:NSOFTWARE. Although the article may not be ideal, at least remembering about WP:CONTN a quick search beyond shows the subject looks not too famous but notable according to the known criteria. But it is all IMHO, of course, and I cannot insist as a not yet too experienced editor (always glad to learn, willing to improve everytime), and unfortunately I have little time to look deeper now. Let's find the truth together. Appreciate the discussion and constructive opinions. Thanks Piotr for starting this. Avbgok (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Avbgok, we need to be specific. If you think this meets NSOFT, can you tell us which criteria from Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion do you think it meets, and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It would be up to the "keep" side to argue which sources make this pass WP:N, and they have not done so. Sandstein 12:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a response to User:Piotrus about WP:NSOFTWARE, I quote: It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. Each of the two book sources provided has several pages of coverage, fulfilling that criterion.

@User:Sandstein: Please see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. It is not the job of other editors to make the case in either direction in such a discussion, but rather the duty of all participants to do their own due diligence. Modernponderer (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: Several pages in a book is not the same as being the subject of the book, which is what the quoted policy implies is preferable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Piotrus: And yet manuals are undoubtedly shorter than books on average, but that statement seems to weigh them equally... Given that that page is not policy (as you incorrectly described it as) but only an essay, we shouldn't be paying much if any attention to the precise wording. Modernponderer (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: I am not saying those sources should be dismissed, but I think they are not sufficient. Let's see how others will judge them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Adrian Georg Iselin. Sandstein 09:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanora O'Donnell Iselin[edit]

Eleanora O'Donnell Iselin (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)

Completely unreferenced two-line stub biography of a person, making no claim of notability except being related to other people. As always, notability is not inherited, so she's not automatically entitled to have an article just because of who she married. I'm willing to consider withdrawing this if somebody can actually beef it up with a genuine notability claim and some actual reliable source coverage about her, but just being married to somebody who has a Wikipedia article is not automatic grounds for her own separate article in and of itself in the absence of more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete articles all need sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Adrian Georg Iselin. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:02, 6 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. The outcome is obvious, but I need to note that I find it rather shocking that the "sources" for this article about an Moldovan/Italian hairdresser and model were a bunch of Indian publications, including supposedly reliable newspapers like The Times of India and The Statesman, that were simply reproducing very obvious promotional material by the subject. I'm collecting these sources for posterity: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} This is not the first time I've seen something like that. We may need to start a discussion about whether to deprecate Indian sources altogether in situations where self-promotion could be an issue. Sandstein 09:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luminita Blosenco[edit]

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

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

A hairdresser who, er, wants to open her own salon. Patently non-notable. Laughable sources too, as analyzed on the talk page. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are interesting as examples of the kind of garbage you can get published in supposedly "generally reliable" sources like The Statesman. And again, funny how they're from India while the subject lives in Italy. Vexations (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not create articles on people on the way to notability. In the case of Blosenco we are not even sure she is actually on her way to notability, but it is clear she is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Lots of people in service jobs have become famous (Bad Bunny was a "bagger" five years ago and last night he was in the Superbowl LIV half-time show; Lil Nas X was a college dropout who scored two Grammys last month). But we don't give them an article until they are actually notable. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this foolishness. I bet she wrote it herself. ⌚️ (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Perumal & Company[edit]

Wilson Perumal & Company (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. There is no significant coverage for this company, just company-sponsored press-releases. The tone of the article is also WP:PROMO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources in the article are rather poor (including press releases and such). It does cite two books and that gave me a pause as I was checking them, but while the first one is only snippet view for me, the second one states "Copyrighted 2010 @ Wilson Perumal & Company" which suggests those books, even if they contain in-depth discussion (which I couldn't verify with my view) are not independent. The article also implies (it's a mess) that those books are simply published by the company, not about it. All I see so far is a failure of NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.[2] is a press release
  [3] is the company's own website
  [4] doesn't really say anything about the company, and those best to work for "awards" are just lists that those companies nominate themselves for; they're not independent reporting
  [5] is a press release
  [6] porchlight is weird; I think they're what we used to call a vanity publisher. They seem to publish anything you want, as longs as you buy in bulk.
  [7] mentions that Wilson Perumal developed the Global Markets Complexity Index (GMCI) (not something we consider notable) and that Wilson Perumal "specializes in advising private equity firms and corporates". That's all the coverage they got. Vexations (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie Hoogland[edit]

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

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

The article contains two citations; which are identical, and are broken. In effect, the article has been an unsourced BLP since its creation in 2005. The corresponding Dutch article, nl:Anne Marie Hoogland, contains much biographical detail, but only one linked citation (this), which appears to be her resume on the website of the political party to which she belongs, PvdA, and ends in 2005. (The maintenance template on that article, nl:Sjabloon:Wiu, is equivalent to our Template:Cleanup, but of course may not have the identical function.) A WP:BEFORE search turned up one, and only one, additional citation (other than social networking sites): an article in De Volkskrant (which is WP:RS) (link), which reports in passing that she came third in a PvdA leadership election in 2005. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources found online. Non-notable person. Angus1986 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I’ve considered nominating this myself a couple of times. Mccapra (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a local politician, doesn't pass WP:NPOL, not enough sources to pass [WP:GNG]]. Achaea (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being chair of a city borough is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL; to be notable for that, she would have to show "significant press coverage", supporting a substantive article about her political significance, to get over NPOL #2. And running for, but not winning, the chairmanship of a political party is not a strong notability claim in the absence of a GNG-worthy volume of media coverage either, so there's no basis to claim that she has expanded notability for other reasons stronger than the city borough. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable local level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have to hold all party officials from all countries - India, United States, Canada, Ireland, or Netherlands - to the same standard of WP:POLOUTCOMES. Unless she's the national chair or treasurer, she's not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She fails both the GNG and NPOL. PK650 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harad#Geography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umbar[edit]

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

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

Non-notable, rather minor location in Tolkien's legendarium. I can find basically no references in reliable sources to this location, and the ones I can find are fleeting references to appearances by "the Corsairs of Umbar" in plot summaries. I don't see the justification for an article here. A merge has been suggested, but I see absolutely nothing here to merge, really. This article is a long plot summary, a brief unreferenced section about when the books Umbar is mentioned in were published, and another shorter sections about adaptations of Umbar and its Corsairs. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, that was the way to do things back in 2005. The justification for delete must be what sources are available, and you can't see that by studying the article itself; Umbar does seem very minor in the critical sources, but it seems a bit curious to bring it here when the merge discussion was just about concluding, and we were clearly going to merge and leave a redirect, which seems a sensible solution. I'd say we should Redirect since "Umbar" is a sensible search term and it's mentioned in the Harad article. I've considered just redirecting Harad as well, but the Haradrim are I think notable for the critical discussions of what Tolkien was doing making enemies distinctly ethnic, though Straubhaar points out that their function is to awaken empathy (in Sam Gamgee, when he sees a dead Harad warrior). All of which says to me that Harad should stay (and be rewritten, sigh) so it should be a stable redirect target for Umbar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I only supported a merger before because you really cannot delete from a merge discussion, and I didn't feel like creating a deletion discussion at the time. There is not enough seperate on Umbar to justify an article. This whole justification for delete is a discussion of what sources are existing, so I do not understand the counter argument. Personally I think we should do with AfD what we have done with CfD, and make merge discussion part of the same process as deletion discussions. Article deletion discussions basically have to be posted 4 different times, and we should publicize merge discussions just as much, with the added rule that they need to be publicized on both the existing page and the target page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, I'm not opposed to removing this article but think we should at least leave a redirect, which the merge would have achieved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this wasn't exactly the greatest move on my part, but I don't see really anything in this article to merge. Probably shoulda just voted "oppose - redirect it" back at the merge discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Harad, the more general topic. If there's anything to merge, it can be added to Harad later, with citations. Goustien (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Harad, where it is mentioned in multiple places, and merge appropriate verifiable content. A WP:BEFORE-style search shows mentions in books like The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia, and The Complete Tolkien Companion. From these and other sources, there is verifiable material and per our policy WP:ATD, if there is verifiable material and a good merge target like Harad, a merge is preferred over deletion. Following policy, I recommend a redirect with subject matter experts determining what more might be merged from article history with due weight. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 01:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Harad § Geography Umbar is another minor location in Tolkien's legendarium. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give him an inch and he'll take a mile[edit]

Give him an inch and he'll take a mile (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 page appears to be outside of project scope, per WP:DICDEF. Since all of the information in the article is basically duplicated at wikt:give them an inch and they'll take a mile, I would suggest deleting or replacing with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary item. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I have not really duplicated from Wiktionary. Instead, it is almost entirely my own creation. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Soumya-8974. Sorry if I was unclear. I'm not saying you copied the article from Wiktionary; I'm just saying the article doesn't expand on the Wiktionary entry in a meaningful way. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a colloquialism. So IMO it goes beyond dictionary. There is also an opportunity to expand the entry with popular culture references and regional usage. Perhaps usage in other countries. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point, though, is that this is already covered at Wiktionary—wikt:give them an inch and they'll take a mile lists over a dozen quotations of the idiom, ranging from 1843 to 1982. It also lists translations in Danish and German. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO It belongs on Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary. However I do not think it is a problem to have this colloquialism in both places. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's common for dictionaries to describe idioms, not just individual words, so it definitely belongs on Wiktionary. According to WP:DICDEF: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." I'm curious to get input from some other editors though. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wiktionary is the correct wiki project for definitions, including proverbs and idioms. To qualify for an encylopaedia entry there would have to be some additional matter of notability, such as a notable etymological conundrum (as for the whole nine yards). I cannot find any such controversy about this phrase, so it does not meet notability guidelines. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WORDISSUBJECT: such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. I cannot find reliable sources about the social or historical significance of the term. OED doesn't contribute to notability and the only other source in the article is from 1546, a compilation of proverbs. , and I can't find this one listed in there. (edited to add: found it in the source, where it appears to be part of a longer kinda-sorta poem without any commentary or added notice, so doesn't support notability) Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't pass DICDEF. Neutrality^talk 02:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not encyclopedic content, really. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - phrases that are likely to have not more than a dictionary definition and some etymology, it's best to leave it to Wiktionary. However, if we want to add cultural impact for context, then an article would be good as well. Cf. Sisu, Chaos, and Moron in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete General pharases or idioms are not meant to have a article on Wikipedia WP:NAD. Not passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. GargAvinash (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buurtpoes Bledder[edit]

Buurtpoes Bledder (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 does not meet WP:Notability, because it was just temporary media coverage of August 2013. --Noebse (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete - I had a look through what sourcing was on the article, and it just and just doesn't quite meet WP:GNG in my eyes. There's no article on Bob the streetcat, just a redirect (and the article on the movie), which is probably the most famous cat I can think of (there are some items on Category:individual cats though, which should probably be looked through. There are articles in three other languages for this item, but I don't think it meets the English wikipedia definition of notability. There's clearly some press, but it borders on WP:1E (whilst not technically being an "event", it was WP:NOTNEWS.) I did a WP:BEFORE search, but I couldn't find much through wikidata or google, but if there were some offline sources or additional foriegn language sources I could be persuaded to change to keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only online media coverage in Dutch. The German, Indonesian and Vietnamese articles rely on Dutch references. --Noebse (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is even less known than a similiar British cat. Social media star cat Garfield killed in Sainsbury's car park accident, who had 6,300 Facebook followers whereas the Dutch cat (which was the most famous cat of Leiden) had only 700 followers when it died. "Met 700 vrienden op Facebook mocht hij zich met recht de populairste kat van Leiden noemen. Ondernemers en caféhouders reageren dan ook diep bedroefd op de dood van het beestje." [8] --Noebse (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, the reason why there hasn't been much coverage over the past several years is because Buurtpoes Bledder died in 2013. Wikipedia is filled with countless articles about deceased individuals who are hardly media figures and don't receive coverage/attention in the year 2020. These individuals range from obscure judges in the US justice system to nearly forgotten authors and, yes, celebrity animals. Also: he has received coverage outside of 2013. There was a follow-up on what happened to his remains on the fifth anniversary of his death in 2018 and a segment that aired on Dutch television. I have added this information and the link to the article/segment. As such, this article should not be deleted. Constablequackers (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete judges make rulings that have impact, cats do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Dutch article nl:Buurtpoes Bledder was speedied in July 2015 (nl:Sjabloon:Nuweg, equivalent to Template:Db). Narky Blert (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Buurtpoes article was worthy of being included in the "Did You Know?" column on Wikipedia's mainpage in 2013 and it includes more sources than many other pages on the site. The cat's photo is currently included on the page for the city of Leiden as well along with a link. Furthermore, the individual who nominated it for deletion (Noebse) has made minimal contributions to Wikipedia over the years and popped up out of nowhere after 10 months of no edits to go after it and has done nothing since. Rather curious behavior and rather cruel if you ask me, especially since he first opted for a speedy delete. Ultimately, yes, this is a silly topic for a Wikipedia page, but Wikipedia is filled with pages for topics that are far more ridiculous. Constablequackers (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, (probably another one by coola that is off topic:)) "There's no article on Bob the streetcat, just a redirect (and the article on the movie), which is probably the most famous cat I can think of..", sorry, but Lee Vilenski isnt thinking very hard, how about Chief Mouser Larry who, amongst his achievements, stopped the US President or Trim, the first cat to circumnavigate Australia? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even generally reliable sources like omroepwest.nl occasionally publish non-news because, well, they like to provide some light entertainment. Such topics a re not actually notable, but because we have a GNG that doesn't consider content, we now have an article on a subject that is "technically" notable, except it really isn't. Most of the sources are actually dead, broken links or Facebook. The best of the sources, omroepwest.nl is reporting that this "famous" cat even has it's own Wikipedia article. Now we have a Wikipedia article on a cat who is notable for having ... a Wikipedia article! The Dutch Wikipedans were sensible enough to delete their version of the article. We should do the same. Vexations (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  This page notes that (translation from Google Translate) "Bledder became known nationally after an article in De Telegraaf because he was the first cat with its own Facebook page." The page includes a photo of a lengthy newspaper article about the subject titled "Buurtpoes Bledder online" that was published in October 2012, 10 months before the subject's death.

  SBS6's television program nl:Hart van Nederland covered the subject's August 2013 death in this article as did Algemeen Dagblad here (metadata here), Leidsch Dagblad here, and Omroep West here. This December 2013 article notes that Leidsch Dagblad declared "Buurtpoes" the word of the year in 2013 after the subject's death.

  Five years after the subject's death, the subject was covered in this article in Omroep West. The article's first paragraph notes (translation from Google Translate): "Cat Bledder from Leiden has been dead for exactly five years. "Well," you would say. But that is different in Leiden. The cat made the national news before its death and has its own Wikipedia and Facebook page because half of Leiden knew the beast. Bledder has been set up and is being put down for a day in the Velvet record store on the Nieuwe Rijn so that people can stop and talk to him. Students from the house on the Hartesteeg where Bledder still lives, deliver him early Tuesday morning to record store Velvet." The article mentions that the cat made the national news before it died and mentions in passing that he has a Wikipedia page. (I do not consider this passing mention of the cat's having a Wikipedia page to detract from the article's contributing to Buurtpoes Bledder establishing notability since the rest of the article focuses on how the people of Leiden are still remembering the cat.)

  That the subject was covered by reliable sources before, at, and after his death demonstrates he has received sustained coverage. That this coverage was in national and regional newspapers and radio stations strongly establishes he is notable.

  Cunard (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan[edit]

Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (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)

Violation of WP:Advocacy, and the author might be a WP:COI editor (even though there is little trace of it in this article alone). To quote Harshil: "They are adding inappropriate details of organisation in articles like Hinduism in Pakistan, Hinduism in Russia and other articles." Also, this article has been almost exclusively edited by only two editors, User:Lebronplz and User:Spasiba5, who share the same POV and COI concerns and biased viewpoints, if they are not outright sockpuppets. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - POV is not grounds for deletion. The article seems well-sourced, including international news channels and Pakistan's own media. If the the slant is skewed, the editor is welcome to improve it or tag it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a POVFORK, there are many misleading unsourced claims in the article. For example, in the lead it says, "Every year about 1,000 non-Muslim girls are forcibly converted to Islam in Pakistan." the source, however, doesn't say that they convert "forcibly", here is what it says "According to a report from the Movement for Solidarity and Peace, about 1,000 non-Muslim girls are converted to Islam each year in Pakistan." Also, the report from the movement for solidarity and peace explicitly says that, "Statistics on forced conversions are either proximate or unavailable". So we don't know if this figure is about "forcibly" or willful conversion or both. I am not a fan of the Pakistani government but I think this article is POVFORK.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SharabSalam, What is it a POVFORK of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ​, Religion in Pakistan.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Religion in Pakistan is about how religion is practised, not about how it is blocked from being practised. After some searching, I found Religious discrimination in Pakistan, which has a section on the topic, even though I would think that forced conversion is a lot more than "discrimination". But if it is the case that a thousand people a year are being forcibly converted, I would argue that the topic merits its own article. I once wrote an article on a a single instance of falsely induced conversion. It is not a great article, and I wouldn't write such an article today. But I would note that, after 5 years, the article is still standing. If I were you, I would try to improve the article and make it more readable and thorough, not to erase it off the map. (By the way, the souce you just cited has "forced conversion" in its very title!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kautilya3, the title is about that case. The paragraph doesnt say that the 1000 converts are forcibly converts. It says

  According to a report from the Movement for Solidarity and Peace, about 1,000 non-Muslim girls are converted to Islam each year in Pakistan.

  That is obviously not saying that the 1,000 are forcibly converting. The report from the Movement for Solidarity says

  Statistics on forced conversions are either proximate or unavailable

  I dont know why did you ignore what I said in my comment and only pointed to the title which is about something different.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I possibly ignored it because the source that is actually cited in the article does say 1,000 people are "forcibly converted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kautilya3: I look at the article... Who is the author? What is the publication? In addition if we accept this as RS, I read the article to be equivocal on the numbers, just like other articles which parrot the same headline and represent it as fact. It is like Clickbait. Most people do not read further than a sensational headline. According to reports, approximately a 1,000 girls are forcibly converted to Islam every year. Predominantly the victims are girls from the Christian and Hindu communities. There is no doubt that there are a number of genuine cases of conversion of non-Muslim women, who convert and marry Muslim men. They go on to say, when women are queried about their marriage we cannot believe the women who claim they were not forced. All of these supposed RS spit out the headline, and then bury a disclaimer. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The News International (or The News, as some people call it) is a standard Pakistani newspaper. We generally regard such news articles as WP:RS and report them as fact, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The kind of content discussion you are engaging in, needs to take place at the talk page of the article, not at an AfD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. I am discussing a source you have presented at AfD which does not say what you have claimed: "the article does say 1,000 people are "forcibly converted" Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are welcome to disagree. I mentioned the source that was cited in the article. I didn't make it up on my own. As per Wikipedia policies, it is a reliable source. If you disagree with the source, it is a content dispute, not a policy dispute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Kautilya3 is correct. POV is not grounds for deletion. When the underlying topic is notable, the article should generally be kept and fixed.

  SharabSalam, POVFORK is a valid justification for a redirect and merge back into the original article, when the two articles really are about the same topic, not two related topics. (Genuine POVFORK is rarely a valid justification for deletion...)

  So, it would be really helpful if you explicitly named the earlier articles you think this article was forked from. Could you do that please? Clarification - are you saying actual passages were cut and paste from that other article? Or are you merely asserting they are on the same topic? FWIW, I think we should reserve the terms FORK, or POVFORK, for instances where material was actually cut and paste from an earlier article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that it was "forked", that's not what POVFORK usually means. The notability of the subject seems to me that it is not for a dedicated article but for an inclusion in Religion in Pakistan article. I also noted that the article has many unsourced claims and probably unreliable sources and this is also another induction that the article is POVFORK and original research.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator WikiWarrior9919, WRT COI, I am trying to figure out who could be in a COI for this article. (1) Those who actively force conversions; (2) those who were targetted by forced conversions. I suggest that this is the kind of topic where everyone else is going to have a personal opinion. I suggest you are very unlikely to find anyone who honestly hasn't formed an opinion as to whether forced conversions are a good thing or a bad thing.

  So, I suggest, if, as you said, you can't point to particular passages you think lapse from neutrality due to a POV, we should ignore your suspicion contributors have a COI. Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The COI claim seems unclear to me but I think it's fair to say that many new editors misunderstand what are the things that constitute as a COI.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator WikiWarrior9919, WRT to SOCKPUPPETRY, if you compare the time cards of your two suspects, they aren't active at the same time. So you may owe them apologies: [9] [10] Geo Swan (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are 1.8 billion muslims in the world. As a percentage 1000 is 0.0000555555555556%. This article appears to be a damaging WP:POV push, and perhaps WP:OR. Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lightburst, consider Lynching in the United States. In recent decades scholars have consulted old records, old newspaper archives, to determine how often racist Southerners lynched black people in the United States. They concluded there was documentary backup for about 4,000 lynchings. We could use the same reasoning you used above, stating that only mere thousands had been lynched, and that meant only a miniscule proportion of blacks were targets of lynching, and only a miniscule fraction of southern whites were lynchers.

    Someone could suggest, as you seem to be doing, that covering lynching was some kind of insult to white Christians. They could suggest, as you seem to be doing, that therefore, lynching shouldn't be covered at all.

NPOV has a section, WP:UNDUE. If there were no documents, no reliable sources, that had ever covered lynching, we couldn't cover it. We couldn't cover it, even if we all knew it had happened, because policy requires articles to be based on WP:Reliable Sources. And, when reliable sources cover something, that only happened to 1000 people, or a hundred people, or even one person, it probably merits coverage. Consider the Dreyfus Affair, an old scandal, in France. Only one guy was the target of that injustice. It shows France in a very bad light, and some French chauvinists might offer an argument, similar to what you seem to be arguing, that the number of people involved was too small to merit coverage here.

But, it is not the size of the target group that matters, it is the amount of RS coverage.

For all I know there are serious RS, in Pakistan, and maybe elsewhere, who dispute this is a real phenomenon. If there are UNDUE would call for those views to be represented as well.

WRT your NPOV and OR concerns... Are you claiming the entire article is OR? If you admit the topic is itself notable, but that some sentences or paragraphs are marred by OR, then shouldn't you merely be saying the article should be improved, that it needs an ORectomy and a POVectomy? Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above it has been called out that the RS does not support the article's claim of "forced": conversion. But even if it did...I also suspect if we look into christianity we will find that the KKK is a christian organization. We would not think of creating an article to say Christians burn crosses and lynch blacks. As a percentage of the 2.18 billion Christians - the KKK is negligible percentage. Therefore I consider this a damaging POV article. Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article title itself appears to be WP:POVPUSH; unnecessary fork of content covered in existing articles, combined with non-neutral WP:OR, does not a valid article make. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Excuse me, but if an article has a bad article title, isn't the obvious solution to discuss renaming it something acceptable?
2. I suggest your assertion that there is a problem with this article covering "content [already] covered in existing articles" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our policies.

   We don't want multiple articles all having independent sections discussing the same topic. When multiple articles all have sections that discuss the same topic, or subtopic, they are likely to diverge, and contradict themselves. When multiple articles all have subsections that discuss the same topic, or subtopic, that is precisely when a new article should be created. A new article should be created, and the subsections of the earlier articles should be cut back, to provide just enough context to frame a ((main)) or ((see also)), that points to the new article, that then becomes the central repository for the information. That way we don't get the problem of divergence and contradiction.

3. Merely making blanket claims of OR isn't convincing. I see an article that discusses a real phenomenon, with dozens of references. The article focusses on details, and could benefit from offering a summary of RS that address the big picture. But there is no way that is grounds for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, renaming the article to something more "acceptable" seems impossible, because the current article title accurately reflects the impermissible WP:POVPUSH nature of the entire article. I agree that renaming the article to something acceptable would be appropriate ... where the article title is the only problem, and curable. That’s obviously not the case here. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: even some sources have misleading titles. Forced conversions torment Pakistan's Hindus from that article: "The problem is that while some cases are actually forced conversions, others are love marriages and there is no way for us to differentiate between them." The article attempts to smear a religion based on a very small percentage. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it happens to 1,000 people a year (or even less than that), the subject is a significant one that deserves a Wikipedia article. The article already contains significant sourced information, and the sources already constitute GNG. Deletion is not cleanup. A lot of the oppose rationales read as IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or denigrate any religion, but state facts. If the Pakistanis want to improve their reputation they should improve their human rights record. buidhe 01:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is enough coverage online about this topic, I don't see any reason to delete it. Angus1986 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep there is enough coverage online about this topic, I don't see any reason to delete it. Please improve it if possible!—Spasiba5 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Striking through CU confirmed sock's post. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Buidhe that the delete opinions look alarmingly like IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not censored. Those who want to suppress this article, on grounds of inaccuracy, claim the references don't support that forced conversions are a phenomenon, in Pakistan. I am afraid their claims really look like the most embarrassing kind of wishful thinking.

  When I read their claims that the RS did not substantiate forced conversions, a few hours ago, I acknowledged to myself I was looking at the headlines. So, I looked at some of the references in detail. Sure enough, the bodies of those articles concurred with the headlines. The authors of those RS really were asserting that forced conversions were a phenomenon, in Pakistan.

  If you personally don't believe that forced conversions are a phenomenon, in Pakistan remember, WP:Verify says we aim for "veritability not truth". I'm sorry, your personal opinion that forced conversions aren't a phenomenon, in Pakistan, is irrelevant, if the RS state otherwise.

  If there are reliable sources that debunk the RS that describe force conversions as a real phenomenon, that would not be an argument to suppress this article. It would be a reason for the RS that stated the opposite side to ALSO be neutrally summarized here, bearing UNDUE in mind.

  If we are going to strictly comply with the wikipedia's policies we have just two choices when the RS say something we don't personally believe (1) do our best to neutrally summarize what the RS say, even though we don't personally believe them; (2) walk away from that article, and let other contributors do all the work on it. In the over fifteen years I have contributed to the wikipedia I have done my best to neutrally summarize thousands of references I disagreed with. So, suck it up buttercup. Geo Swan (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this POV CONTENTFORK per others above. TNT is the best option. 39.50.217.44 (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC), involved in socking. Störm (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has anyone really looked at the article or its sources? Seriously? MS 会話 11:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Geo Swan pretty much said what I had in mind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well sourced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282E:2DB7:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep POV is not a rationale for deletion, but rather a reason for cleanup. Combined with what Geo Swan says above, I see no convincing reason to delete. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a legitimate and well sourced sub-page of Forced conversion. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kautilya3 and Geo Swan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I hate the blatant canvassing. I have to admit that IDONTLIKEIT. It needs work to fix the weasel words. It is something of a fork of Religious discrimination in Pakistan, but that article is already far too long. I like Pakistanis, have had colleagues from Pakistan, and saved Nursing in Pakistan (among others). But I have to agree with Geo_Swan. It passes on the basis of significant coverage. And IMHO, Al Jazeera is more reputable than some media from the United States. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although this AFD seems pretty likely to close as keep, I am going to comment on WikiWarrior9919 and Shelbystripes use of POVPUSH - as per my user essay every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.

The POVPUSH wikidocument urges caution in using the term POVPUSH, because it is inflammatory. It recommends first raising one's concerns over POV on the article's talk page, or the user talk page of particular contributors. It recommends dispute resolution as the next step, if raising one's concerns didn't work. I suggest nominator WikiWarrior9919 and Shelbystripes misused POVPUSH, by hand-waving at it, while totally ignoring its advice. So, I urge them to carefully re-read any wikidocuments they use in discussions, to make sure they mean what they thought they meant. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This was unnecessary derision towards two editors here, and your remarks regarding how I should handle "concerns over POV" are just, frankly, wrong. It makes no sense to raise "concerns over POV" outside of an AfD during an AfD, where one's concern is that POV irreparably permeates an article and thus supports deletion. While I'm highly sympathetic to the plight of young girls being victimized, I'm also sympathetic to issues of religious stereotyping without justification, and the sheer volume of POV in the article screams at me. The fact that I was using a term like WP:POVPUSH that I practically never use isn't a sign I'm "misusing" it (I'm not sure it has a "proper" use?), it was meant to convey how seriously I consider the POV issue to be present and fatal here. Since you've basically chosen to declare I was wrong to express my concern that the article has fatal POV issues here in the AfD, I'll elaborate on why I framed my concerns that way.

  As discussed above, there are inconsistencies between what the "WP:RS" say and the key primary source they draw from, a report by the Movement for Solidarity and Peace (MSP), which actually gives wide estimate ranges that may be much lower than those reported in the articles and disclaims:

  Statistics on forced conversions are either proximate or unavailable.

  The Aurat Foundation just repeated the MSP's numbers in its own 2014 report (p. 16), the chief patron of the Pakistan Hindu Council (PHC) was referencing just-published numbers in the MSP report, and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace quoted the chief patron of PHC when he quoted MSP (p. 26). And (putting aside the other issues with these sources) all the "RS" in the article just say "estimates of 1,000" (or worse, things like "at least 1,000") when 1,000 per year is the high end of a broad estimate range given in the MSP article; estimates could equally be reported as low as 400 per year according to the same source (and they're just reporting other entities' estimates). Yet so many secondary "reliable sources," either in the article or that I've tried to find independently, end up repeating the MSP's "1,000 per year" high-end estimate as a "total" number, with no critical analysis whatsoever! The article's sources (as of now) number 1, 4, 8, 9/10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 cite either the MSP estimate, or the Aurat, CCJP, or PHC sources that just repeated the MSP estimate, as their primary statistical source. Source 7 claims that a 2015 "South Asia Partnership" report estimates 1,000 per year, even though it doesn't (though other sources that mention the SAP-PK and the 1,000 number claim the SAP-PK report was prepared "in collaboration with the Aurat Foundation", which it wasn't, and Aurat did cite to MSP in its own report, suggesting source 7 is also actually invoking the MSP source). Source 6 (the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada, or IRBC) mentions that "NGOs" have estimated "700 Christian girls are kidnapped and forced to convert" annually; the 1,000 estimate in the MSP report includes "100 to 700 victim Christian girls per year," strongly suggesting MSP and IBRC got the 700 "estimate" from the same NGO (and MSP considered 700 on the high end of available estimates). This large game of telephone, with sources repeating either the MSP, the MSP's sources, or sources the MSP relied on, is circular reporting that means none of these sources are truly independent on the topic of how often forced conversions actually happen. And cite 16 (which suggests just 265 cases per year, not 1,000) is the last in the section purporting to describe the volume of conversions. The rest of the article, and its citations, are just a short list of individual incidents each involving one or a small number of people at a time. Tying just those together to declare "forced conversions to Islam in Pakistan" is a substantial and notable issue is impermissible WP:OR.

  This matters a lot, when you have editors above saying things like, "if it happens to 1,000 people a year (or even less than that), the subject is a significant one that deserves a Wikipedia article." Well... that's actually a really, really big "if" that is far, far less supported by independent reliable sources than people here are prepared to admit. I cannot find any sources truly independent from the MSP report that validate the volume of forced conversions claimed in the article. And while I support the mission of MSP, as a civil rights advocacy organization, they aren't exactly a neutral source.

  It seemed obvious to me after an initial review that the above sort of issues permeated the article, though I don't usually put this much effort into researching and writing out my AfD position in this level of detail, because it's not usually necessary. I'm going to stop there; I've done enough to illustrate my concern over a lack of truly independent and neutral sources on this topic, such that once you remove the POV content, you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to what little is left by giving it a standalone article that is potentially inflammatory toward an entire nation/religion of people. I do believe there's an enormous POV pushing issue here, and that you can't remove all of it and still have enough left over for a valid standalone article.

  I will say that I am sorry if anyone took my invocation of POVPUSH as an attack on them; I never intended for anyone to do so. The WP:POVPUSH page says that "calling someone a 'POV-pusher' is uncivil and pejorative," but I haven't done that. An AfD isn't (or at least shouldn't be) directed at an editor, it's directed at an article, and I intended to voice my concern that Wikipedia is or will be POV-pushing by keeping this article under the circumstances, which is meant to be a red flag as to how seriously I have POV concerns. I already know I'm in the minority here, in which case I hope someone will prove me wrong, and demonstrate that it's possible to cure what I consider deeply embedded POV issues and still have a deserving standalone article left when they're done.

  As per teachable moments, I might highlight the benefit of not trying to sound like you're using AfDs to self-promote your own essays. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but definitely clean up. The article sounds so biased one way as if any non-Muslims stepping over the border at any entryway will be pounced on, attacked, and forced to convert. There is little to no mention of the attempts to protect those who do not wish to convert, and the single article I was looking at so far said the problems were mainly in the Sindh province, not everywhere. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• How about a merge to Human_rights_in_Pakistan#Forced_conversions or Religious_discrimination_in_Pakistan#Forced_conversion? Assuming that we don't apply WP:TNT here, I don't think this topic is important enough to merit its own separate article, especially considering the sketchy circumstances regarding its genesis.
• Also I did not misuse POVPUSH. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's important to always take context into consideration when dealing with situations like these. I have done my part by rereading WP:POVPUSH, and you should do yours by reading User_talk:Lebronplz#Note_to_Admin (the reason I even submitted this in the first place). ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I looked at User_talk:Lebronplz#Note_to_Admin, as you requested. Harshil169 also seems to have lapsed from POVPUSH, in jumping to characterizing someone's efforts as a POVPUSH, without any apparent effort to discuss their POV concerns with them first. He or she mentions ISKCON - that is the group known as the Hare Krishnas, right? While I am personally not an admirer, I wouldn't dream of trying to censor material about their movement, or written by someone who was a member of their movement, if that material complied with NPOV and all our other policies. You, Harshil169, GPL93 should have addressed how, or whether, the material lapsed from NPOV, preferably on the article's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WikiWarrior9919, doesn't POVPUSH explicitly caution contributors that labelling other contributor's efforts instances of POVPUSH was inflammatory? Are you disputing that labelling other contributor's efforts POVPUSH was your first step in addressing your concerns? I'd appreciate your acknowledgement this was a lapse from POVPUSH.
  2. Don't the suggested remedies for a POV concern, at POVPUSH, start with a civil voicing of concern, on the talk page? Did you start by voicing your concern, on the talk page, or on a User talk page? I'd appreciate your acknowledgement this was a lapse from POVPUSH.
  • With regard to your implied suggestion that we redirect this article, so it became a subsection of another article. That would be a terrible idea. In my opinion, any topic worthy of a wikilink, is worthy of a standalone article, provided it has a reasonable number of references.

    Wikilinks that redirect to a subsection of some other article are not properly supported by our underlying WMF software. Bidirectional Wikilinks are a huge improvement on the uni-directional likes on the rest of the internet. An ordinary webmaster has no idea how many webpages a link to a webpage he or she controls. Ordinary internet links go dead, when a webmaster re-organizes the hierarchy of webpages he or she manages. If that webpage wasn't archived at the wayback machine, a reader is screwed. Here on the wikipedia robots create redirects, and keep them up to date, when our article titles are changed. But wikilinks to subsections break when the title of the subsection is changed. This is a very strong argument against suggestions like yours.

    In addition the "what links here" button is undermined by stuffing two articles under one title.

    The value of watchlists is undermined, when we let someone force two articles under one title, with a redirect to a subsection heading.

    You made this suggestion without offering a single advantage for doing so. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - WP:POVPUSH says that characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It does not say to never do it, and the fact that three (so far) editors have invoked it here suggests that this may be the extraordinary circumstance where it was be warranted to highlight extreme editorial concerns. The POVPUSH page also says that calling another editor a "POV-pusher" is pejorative, but no one here has done that or addressed any individual editor's contributions, they've only used the term to refer to the article. Here is the place to discuss those concerns, where the perceived POV issues permate the article as a whole (see my above response on this, where I go into far greater detail).

      If you are taking commentary regarding POV issues in the article as if it is directed toward you personally, I might recommend you read WP:OWNERSHIP and reflect on the fact that, as no editor 'owns' an article, no editor should feel personal offense toward how other editors discuss an article or its content, particularly when those discussing are not raising (or even aware of) the identity of individual contributing editors. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thing, WikiWarrior9919... Your comment "...I don't think this topic is important enough to merit its own separate article..." suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. You seem to be choosing to ignore important points others have tried to explain to you, or just failing to understand them. Your personal opinion on the importance of topics is irrelevant. This is not an insult. My personal opinions are also irrelevant. I am not a newspaper editor, or famous historian, or anyone else we would consider a reliable source, and neither are you. It is the opinions of reliable sources that matter, when determining notability. Reliable sources thought the topic was worth writing about, that is all that counts. Even if, for the sake of argument, you were convinced all those reliable sources got it wrong, WP:Verify says we aim for what is verifiable, not what is true.

    This is an extremely important point, and I urge you to make sure you understand and acknowledge it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A highly notable topic which has received attention from both local and international media, and has affected the political discource not only in Pakistan but also in the neighboring state of India. POVFORK doesn't apply here because there is more than enough content to warrant a separate article. Bharatiya29 15:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of coverage. Notable topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Important question: When you vote "keep", do you mean "leave the article as is", or "blank and rewrite an article about the same topic from scratch"? As those are two very different intentions for "keeping" the article. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "Keep" means "keep the article; do not delete". There is never any requirement on Wikipedia to "leave the article as is". It looks like you are fundamentally confused about the AfD process. I would advise you not to make any AfD proposals until you develop a proper understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's notable and well-sourced. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability well established.--Staberinde (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state cacti[edit]

List of U.S. state cacti (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 overly short list with one entry matching the description and one loose fit (Texas has the prickly pear cactus as "state plant", not "state cactus"[11]). The closest merger target I found would be a bit of a shoehorn fit. Adding a new category, "state cactus", to List of U.S. state and territory plants and botanical gardens makes that cobbled together list more indiscriminate. It already has the prickly pear cactus. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Considering that this list contains only two entries, only one of which can even be considered a real state cactus (as opposed to just a state plant happening to be a cactus), I don't see why this list was even formed to begin with. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A list containing only two items is really not necessary. Especially, as pointed out above, only one of those two entries is actually valid. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- No real reason to have a list of two (one?) items. Hog Farm (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not sure about this one. Are there more states with a state cacti? If so this may be a valid LISTN Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have completed a merge of the one addition to List of U.S. state and territory plants and botanical gardens. CO's state cactus goes fine with the state lichens, herbs, and shrubs. Reywas92^Talk 00:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete thanks Reywas92 no need for this list now. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Construct (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Construct (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 list of Dungeons & Dragons constructs seems to fail WP:LISTN, as no non-primary reliable sources discuss D&D constructs as a group. It also fails WP:PLOTONLY, as it contains no real-world context. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no sources to indicate that this fictional creature type has any kind of notability. The sources being used in the current article are all primary, and searching for additional sources only come up with trivial mentions, non-reliable, or non-independent sources. Only one of the blue linked entries actually leads to an actual independent article, so it also fails as a navigational tool. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We've previously established that Wizards of the Coast is not RS due to a tendency to fictionalize and exaggerate information about itself, even information of the most basic variety and even about its own fiction products. The entire article is pretty much sourced to Wizards of the Coast publications, ergo, we have no RS that prove that this exists in fiction (a remarkable and mind-bending Catch 22). Therefore, due to a total absence of RS, delete is necessary. Chetsford (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just the fact that its only sourced to official products would be enough to fail the WP:GNG, due to the utter lack of independence. I'm not sure if this argument that they can't be considered reliable sources regarding whether their own fictional topics exist is necessary. Or makes any sense. Rorshacma (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh... Am I missing something? Discounting a reliable source based on that small discussion seems like a pretty large leap to reach that conclusion. There may be more, but only pointing to that section is definitely not enough explaining to discount something in my eyes without further context. -2pou (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gore (actor)[edit]

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

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

Weak BLP, but other non-notability persons for young actors, both unclear and insufficient. Ni3Xposite (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ni3Xposite (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR: series regular/main role in The Michael J. Fox Show and The Kids Are Alright, main role in the We Are What We Are and recurring role in Billions—all of which appear to be notable productions—plus several other TV and film roles. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is a strong case for meeting WP:NACTOR. Sources within the body of the article are good enough.Watchbotx (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Individual appears to have SIGCOV, such as this, not to mention a razor-thin NACTOR claim. PK650 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TableMaster[edit]

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

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

The Arcane review seems to be the only source for this program, which thus fails WP:N,as nothing else in the 6 Google hits helps us here[12]. The company has no article either, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I AGF as to the veracity of the single source in the article. However, a single source does not equal SIGCOV and my BEFORE fails to unearth additional RS. Chetsford (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Clark[edit]

D. J. Clark (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:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to not passing WP:NGRIDIRON the subject does not pass our GNG or WP:COLLATH Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Played DB at FCS Idaho State. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games) and WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards) and not finding significant coverage of the type needed to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable football player. Being on practice squads does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominators. Non notable football player. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Not notable as college-only player. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear cut WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:05, 5 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, without prejudice to adding relevant content to Becontree Heath and redirecting there if reliable independent sources can be found specifically indicating that this existed as a noteworthy feature of the area. Please note that the existence of a routine bus stop in a place is generally not noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. BD2412 T 05:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Becontree Heath bus station[edit]

Becontree Heath bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable bus station. As per https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/stop/490003764W/becontree-heath-bus-station/, only three London buses serve this bus station which make this a non-notable bus station so it should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Becontree Heath as a "Transport" section (as a viable alternative to deletion). Bookscale (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looking at Google Streetview, the bus station no longer exists. A residential development is under construction on the site of the bus station and the adjacent land. A travel section in Becontree Heath might mention that there was once a bus station. --DavidCane (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the fact that the bus station no longer exists does not mean it was never notable. Your rationale for deletion is really an argument for merging the page. Bookscale (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bookscale: It was not a bus station; it was an area where buses terminated and that is not at all notable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - that's not my point. The point I made was that just because it is demolished doesnt take any notability it may have away. And if it's not a bus station why is it called that? Bookscale (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bookscale: It shouldn't have been called that. There is not bus station. There is no bus garage. I don't know why it is called that. It is simply a bus stop. At one point, Becontree Heath may have had a bus station but I can't find any sources online justifying that Becontree Heath did have a bus station. A bus station is normally larger than a bus stop. A bus stop where only three buses stop at is not considered to be notable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't mind your merge proposal for the other bus stops because they seem reasonable. However, I strongly believe this article about a bus stop in Becontree Heath should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems to have been a terminating facility as well as a bus stop nearby - so "bus station" may be a relevant term for such a facility. We have them in Australia for similar purposes. Anyway - I'm not sure why a merge is not a viable option in this case. Bookscale (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's an effing bus station, something so common as to be the definition of trivial. At least given that there seems to be no coverage of it (WP:N). Banalities like these should not be merged. Sandstein 16:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sandstein, as an administrator, the sort of comment in your first sentence is really not appropriate. Could you please strike through that comment? Bookscale (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional places in G.I. Joe[edit]

List of fictional places in G.I. Joe (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)

List of minor fictional locations that fails to establish notability. This is not a justified spin-out article, and I cannot imagine the franchise has any kind of analysis suited to a properly sourced "World of G.I. Joe" article. TTN (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pure listcruft and FANDOM material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a clear example of an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. References are the comics themselves. Ajf773 (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Narnia (world). (non-admin closure) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cair Paravel[edit]

Cair Paravel (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 page has existed 15 years and had a notice of no sources for 8. I looked for sources and found nothing scholarly. There is a much longer article on a fansite, but I can find nothing about the development of this article. No real world notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Narnia (world), where it is already briefly covered. It comes up in a number of sources, but these fall mainly into plot summaries or very brief mentions when talking about Lewis' work as a whole. There does not seem to be any significant coverage that would justify this being spun out of the overall topic of the fictional location of Narnia. Its a plausible search term, so redirecting to the main article would be a good idea, but as there is no sourced material here, there is nothing to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Narnia (world) per Rorshacma. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Narnia (world) § Narnia Cair Paravel is a minor location in Lewis's Narnia series. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. I had no trouble finding RS that had interesting things to say about Cair Paravel. Many RS connect "Cair Paravel" to Lewis's childhood experiences. There is also RS material about location shooting and CGI representation of Cair Paravel in two Narnia movies. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Currently fails to establish notability, and there's an entire world article that requires expansion even if the above is true. TTN (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 5 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. Draft can be requested via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 16:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Angaddev[edit]

King Angaddev (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 Antila333 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably 'delete: perhaps userify -- The article has a lot of links but they are almost all to Hindi sources, so that I have no idea what they say. The one exception does not actually say anything about the subject. I am not sure if this is a piece of Hinduva propaganda (which is frequently distorted). It might even be a hoax. It is possible that this is a translation from a Hindi WP. Certainly in its present form, it is such a poor article that it cannot be kept in WP mainspace. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article lacks context to make me understand if this person is notable. Maybe draftify till we can figure out exactly what is going on.★Trekker (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The article was previously draftified by me due to a lack of sources proving notability and poor translation. The article's creator just re-created it in mainspace again apparently. The subject of the article seems notable, but the article is clearly incomplete and should be improved upon in draftspace. lovkal (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify, in its current state, it is a WP:HOAX. Argal state is a traditional account of a regional rajput feudatory. I don't know if it would even qualify WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trigenics[edit]

Trigenics (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)

Medical article, but sources are either first-party sources or from chiropractic journals that do not pass WP:MEDRS -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are zero pubmed indexed reveiws on the topic. Combine that with the concerns above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per MEDRS issues. I would consider changing this determination if it were to be shown as notable for quackery. N.b. it is found in The Happy Body: Getting to the Root of Your Fitness, Health and Productivity published by vanity press Morgan James Publishing, which does not help notability claim. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's been tagged for a long time, but still lacks enough independent RS to justify existence. Even as a fringe or quackery type subject it would need that. MEDRS are not a requirement for existence here, but only for medical claims, so that issue could be resolved by proper wording, but we would still need those independent sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an article on a health treatment with no reliable secondary sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Pontificalibus 12:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group mind (science fiction)[edit]

Group mind (science fiction) (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)

Largely unreferenced listcruft and example farm that fails WP:LISTN. I have merged the sole potentially relevant sentence in the article to Collective consciousness#In speculative fiction. Almost everything else is WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an underreferenced list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and convert to a more explicit list, List of science fiction works involving group minds -- The Anome (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While the concept may be notable, I'm leaning towards deletion simply because of what a mess this is, and how starting over from scratch would probably be easier then trying to clean up this massive amount of poor, unsourced content. At the very least, this needs some massive clean up and pruning, as just a quick glance over this list is showing tons of entries that aren't actually a "group mind", examples that are listed multiple times on different parts of the list, and a bunch of entries from things that are not science fiction. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. There are many academic works of literary criticism that discuss this concept, easily accessible on Google Books and the Internet Archive:

• Science Fiction and the Prediction of the Future: Essays on Foresight and Fallacy by Wong King Yuen, McFarland (2011)
• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders · Volume 3 by Gary Westfahl, Greenwood Press (2005)
• Philosophers Look at Science Fiction by Nicholas D. Smith, Nelson-Hall (1982)
• Science Fiction in Classic Rock: Musical Explorations of Space, Technology and the Imagination, 1967-1982 by Robert McParland, McFarland (2017)
• Brave New Words : The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction by Jeff Brucher, Oxford University Press (2007)

All of these discuss the concept in real-world terms, comparing different uses of the concept in the context of the history of the genre. I'll add these sources to the page under a "Further reading" secction, so that people can use them to improve the article. With WP:ARTN in mind, I think that people who are concerned about the quality of the article should use these sources and make it better. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources provided by Toughpigs establishes notability... — Hunter Kahn 03:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance locations[edit]

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

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

This is an overly in-depth list of fictional items. Dragonlance#World, or a split out article of that if notability can be established, are more than enough to talk about the fictional world. Going this in-depth is something for fans that belongs on a fan wiki. It is just a justified spin-out. TTN (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Entirely in-universe plot information. The sources are almost completely primary or from unreliable sources (fansites, etc). The only two attempts at secondary sources are being used to support very little information here (one of them is literally just supporting the assertion that the name of the world is Krynn), and do not cover the grouping as a whole at all, which means they do not help this list pass WP:LISTN. The essential information on the Dragonlance setting is already covered in the main Dragonlance article, and none of the primary or non-sourced information included here would be appropriate to merge or preserve. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial, in-universe material without any reliable, third-party coverage. To see how Wikipedia's stance has changed throughout these years is interesting to see. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a few aspects based on secondary and primary sources to make Dragonlance#World more round, and then redirect. Specifically the list of continents, what's in Heroic Worlds and Genesis LPMud should be carried over in my opinion. To see how Wikipedia's stance has changed throughout these years is interesting and sad. Daranios (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:LISTN, as the article is sourced almost entirely to primary sources, with the secondary sources used to contribute trivial in-universe information. Since none of the listed locations have articles, it does not have a navigational purpose. The article itself is not a useful redirect, and there is no information in it worth merging. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Unilever. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unilever Nepal[edit]

Unilever Nepal (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 unreferenced article seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE for news reveals no in-depth, reliable coverage, through there are the usual mentions in passing (press releases and their rewrites about WP:ROUTINE business activities, share prices, etc.). Out of those the best (as in, not a rewritten PR piece) would be [13] (but it's just just a half para in a low key news outlet) and [14] (but it does very much read like a paid-for promo piece). There is an interesting claim in [15] about it being the largest manufacturing enterprise in Nepal, but don't get excited - the book is unreliable (WP:SPS) and the sentence is copied straight from the company's website ([16]). Books search shows some passing coverage of the factory being closed and then reopened, but it is generally in-passing example to illustrate trouble with Maoisit insurgency in Nepal and not any in-depth coverage, and many of those mentions or such are SPS as well. And GScholar shows in addition that some aspects of the company have been discussed in two master theses: [17], [18], but master theses, particularly from niche Indian universities, are of borderline reliability when it comes to source quality. Overall, I think this falls on the wrong side of borderline for NCOMPANY, and as such I would suggest redirecting this to parent company (Unilever). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Not notable independent of Unilever group as a whole. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is fine here. BD2412 T 12:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is redirected it should be to Hindustan Unilever, the parent company, rather than to Unilever, the grandparent. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur this is a preferable redirect to the one I proposed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with that. BD2412 T 04:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Likely outcome, but showing my support. Even if it was independently notable, there isn't enough context to justify its own page. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After a substantial rewrite of the article, the early "delete"s probably don't apply any more. The article in its new form would need a new AfD if that is still desired. Sandstein 18:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First strike (coinage)[edit]

First strike (coinage) (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)

Besides the tags (no sources, original research), most of the article states what "First Strike" is not, rather than what it is. Ultimately, the definition comes down to what the two major coin grading companies (PCGS and NGC) decide for their own labeling purposes. With no consistent definition or notability on its own, "First Strike" should just be mentioned as a service description on each company's article. HalJor (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Coin grading. The fact that the US Mint has to issue a press notice about the term[19] shows that it is in widespread use, regardless of how nebulous the definition is. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: What sources would you base a keep or merge on? The article has none at all, and that press statement is not sufficient basis for an article. Not all terms merit coverage in an encyclopedia, even if they are supposedly in widespread use.----Pontificalibus 12:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Selective Merge to Coin grading. 1 might be an RS, but it's just information about a lawsuit over the usage of this term. There's also the government press release Clarityfiend found. A very short section at the Coin grading article explaining that there is no strictly defined "First stike" grade, and that the grade has been disputed, would explain the usage of the term to readers. Hog Farm (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note re Coin grading: "First Strike" isn't a grade -- it doesn't factor into the condition at all. It is assigned based on when the coin was received by a certification service (or postmark on original packaging), and is noted on the label in the slab. Additionally, if the coin is designated "First Strike" (or similar) by NGC, it will not receive that labeling when submitted to PCGS through their crossover service [20] -- that designation is lost, so it applies only to the certification process by a third-party, not the coin itself. NGC has discontinued "First Strike" altogether, replacing it with "Early Release", "First Day of Issue" among others [21] -- PCGS also has "First Day of Issue", distinct from "First Strike" ([22] vs [23]). It may be a candidate for Third party grading where designation is done, rather than coin grading which can be applied to uncertified coins as well. HalJor (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable apparently country-specific marketing phrase lacking significant coverage in reliable independent sources.----Pontificalibus 16:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Coin grading. The page is poorly sourced and written as marketing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would keep or merge in some form. It's a term that occurs out in the world enough that someone might want to know what it means. BD2412 T 12:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but wikipedia is not a dictionary. buidhe 15:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already substantial material in the article that goes beyond a dictionary definition. That said, I have no objection (as already reflected in my !vote) to merging this somewhere rather than maintaining a separate article. BD2412 T 00:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Coin grading, As a long time coin collector I know that these coins are usually the highest relief, and the finest examples. They command a premium. The term is easily researched. It is a service to our readers that we keep the entry. Lightburst (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a collector as well, and that these "are usually the highest relief, and the finest examples" is false, or at least is not inherent in the "First Strike" designation. There are examples which grade lower than those without the designation, and if you removed these coins from the slab, you would not be able to discern the difference as far as "First Strike" is concerned. HalJor (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Pontificalibus, BD2412, Buidhe, Clarityfiend, Hog Farm, HalJor, My very best wishes, and BD2412: Please take another look at the article. I have made some improvements and hopefully brought it up to encyclopedic level. I believe it merits a stand alone - and there is more research to be found. Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Keep per User:Lightburst. Additions and rewrite provide enough for a reasonably sourced, GNG-passing stub. Hog Farm (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Lightburst: That’s definitely an improvement to the article, but it is still totally US-centric. So much so that it could be merged to United States Mint because it’s all about how they designate their output. If this was a section within the US mint article I don’t think anyone would argue it ought to be split to a new article. Any reliable sources discussing the term in relation to other mints? ---Pontificalibus 21:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus It is actually marketing. Clever marketing. And the lawsuit likely helps make a case for a separate article no? I will look for other mints using the term. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus It's marketing by third-party graders that are US-based, and has nothing to do with the US Mint, nor coin grading in general. The article is improved, but I still question whether it warrants its own article or should redirect to Third-party grading even though some of those graders don't offer the service. HalJor (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is a 3rd party grader marketing strategy: HalJor The question is whether the marketing strategy is notable. Several other companies use the strategy as well. But perhaps it merits a stand alone. I will wait to hear from some other participants. I actually changed my own hypothesis while researching the term. And was surprised to learn it is some sales strategy. Thankfully in my own collecting I did not seek out coins with this designation. I would also say that perhaps it is a service to our readers that that can easily find this topic and know the reality of what a First Strike is before purchasing. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with "it is a service to our readers", but is it encyclopedic? Side note -- it's not just US coins that get "First Strike". Here's one given to a Chinese Gold Panda [24] HalJor (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:21, 5 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. Pretty clear consensus that the article material should not be deleted. Whether or not to merge and/or redirect to Robot series (Asimov) can be settled by discussion outside AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Positronic brain[edit]

Positronic brain (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)

Unreferenced, entirely original research, and an example farm that fails WP:GNG. Most of the article that isn't popular culture examples is just restating what is already in Three Laws of Robotics. Simply a technobabble buzzword - I mean flux capacitor doesn't even have its own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Robot series (Asimov). Not notable independent of Asimov's works. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robot series (Asimov). The only real in-depth, non-plot summary sources on the concept that I am finding all appear to be in relation to Asimov's work, but even then it does not appear to have the coverage needed to split it off into its own article. I think that the Robot Series article could certainly stand to be expanded with some more information on the topic, but as the information here is largely unsourced, merging of this particular article would not be advised. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robot series (Asimov), where it is mentioned. With 100-200 page views a day, this is a proven plausible search term and the existence of the concept of a positronic brain in Asimov's fiction is not in doubt. Per our policy WP:ATD, "fails WP:GNG" is not an valid argument for deletion, only for rejecting a standalone article. Hence, redirect. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 01:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per everyone else (and the First Law of Editing: "An editor may not injure Wikipedia or, through inaction, allow Wikipedia to come to harm"). I've already redirected Positronic there instead of to Positron. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen "positronic" used in the context of scientific literature when I googled the term. It doesn't seem like an obvious redirect to the Robot series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll concede it is used occasionally in physics, but IMO the primary usage is in Asimov's writings, so the options are a dab page (since there's also Positronic (company)) or expanding the hatnote in Robot series (Asimov). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The phrase "positronic brain" is common in various science fiction works, not just Asimov's but also Star Trek the Next Generation and others, and people may very likely come to Wikipedia to learn whether a "positronic brain" is a real scientific concept, made up technobabble, or what, and would be interested to learn that this phrase actually has a history with Asimov, and why he used the word "Positronic" in the first place (because the positron had only recently been discovered). This this it would be a big mistake to remove this article, and also a mistake to redirect it to Asimov's "Robot series", as, as I said, this phrase has come to be used in various science fiction works having nothing to do with Asimov's. Perhaps this article should be trimmed down to avoid repeating things said elsewhere. I can also become a redirect to a section inside a bigger "science fiction technology", if we had one. But I think it should not be deleted. Nyh (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to be a WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument. No evidence was brought forth that it is actually notable, besides claims that it is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. The term has been discussed in many works of literary analysis, including:

• An Asimov Companion: Characters, Places and Terms in the Robot/Empire/Foundation Metaseries by Donald E. Palumbo, McFarland (2016)
• Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas by Ace G. Pilkington, McFarland (2017)
• Chaos Theory, Asimov's Foundations and Robots, and Herbert's Dune: The Fractal Aesthetic of Epic Science Fiction by Donald Palumbo, Greenwood Press (2002)
• Isaac Asimov by William F. Touponce, Twayne Publishers (1991)
• "My Robots", essay by Isaac Asimov first published by Ace Books as an introduction to "Isaac Asimov's Robot City" (1987)
• The unauthorized Trekkers' guide to The next generation and Deep Space Nine by James Van Hise, HarperPrism (1995)
• Brave New Words : The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction by Jeff Brucher, Oxford University Press (2007)

I don't have access to more biographies or literary criticism texts about Asimov, but I would expect that as a major concept in his most popular early fiction, there are more discussions of the concept. I'll add these to the article under a "Further reading" section, so that people who are concerned about the state of the article will have some resources to improve it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I still do not believe it would be WP:UNDUE to put all this information in Robot series (Asimov) under a section. The notability of this in-universe element is largely tied to usage in his books, primarily that series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Toughpigs, Sadads (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The current article is quite poor, so it would be much more beneficial to explore this in a parent topic and then decide to split it out later if there are size concerns. I'd say with the exception of the three laws, you could likely merge most of these topics into one overarching analysis of robotics and cybernetics in his works. TTN (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think a lot more people associate positronic brains with Star Trek than with Asimov. -- Dorama285 18:30, 05 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. BD2412 T 03:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacer (Asimov)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable fictional element that fails WP:GNG. Pure original research in its entirety. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. The current article lacks sources. Even if there is analysis, it would be better spent on the parent articles at this point. TTN (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Classic, cool, and totally fails NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT/WP:OR.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern soul[edit]

Modern soul (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:N and WP:NOT. A poorly written article backed by one source which is a fan made blog since 2006 (comparison). Article is confusing and wholly unnecessary. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]