< 22 March	24 March >

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel Romero Fernández[edit]

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

We normally consider bishops of major denominations organized in a territorial manner to be notable. I'm bringing this here to help resolve whether this applies only to the bishop in charge of a diocese, or, as here, an auxiliary bishop, who assists the Diocesan Bishop. The basis for the presumption that bishops are notable was based on the argument of their influence in the area, analogous to mayors of cities, etc. I helped establish this presumption about 12 years ago; I don't think I had auxiliary or assistant bishops in mind at the time, but I think I would be reluctant to make the same presumption for them. However, either conclusion would be reasonable. (For perspective, the Roman catholic church in the US has at the moment 156 Diocesan bishops and 76 auxiliary bishops as well as 94 retired diocesan bishops and 43 retired auxiliary bishops.)[1] DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fr. Romero's selection as bishop was announced earlier today; so far it's been covered by the secular press (Newsday, Europa Press) and the independent religious press (CNA/ACI Prensa, ZENIT), as well as his diocesan newspaper (Long Island Catholic) and the Catholic News Service, which is owned by the USCCB. Cheers, gnu 57 03:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed What is going on here!! As I stated on Fr. Romero's talk page, I have created the last 60+ pages for new Bishops/Auxiliary Bishops with references and linked them to the Archdioceses\Dioceses pages. The Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States will prove that. I've never encountered any problems like this before. In fact, last week I created pages for Michael A. Saporito, Gregory J. Studerus, and Ramon Bejarano, they were named as Auxiliaries and their pages have been linked to the Wikidata projects, yet they're not up for deletion!

Roberto221 (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto, I've seen other articles also on auxiliary bishops, and I'm not certain what to do about them so I am bringing the test AfD to see what others think. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If appointment announcements are considered in RS coverage, then I would say every aux is notable, because they generally receive the same kind of attention upon the occasion of their appointment. However, after that point they disappear into a black hole. Nobody covers their installation if they have a public one (I'm pretty sure they all do) and they seldom do anything newsworthy unlike the ordinary. So I would say their notability hinges on that initial flurry of coverage. If we are willing to accept that, then yes, otherwise, no. Elizium23 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only if they've actually accomplished something noteworthy. Historically, some have been college presidents, vicar-generals, or coadjutors, but barring some recognized activity, only became notable when they came into their own. Most are largely mid-level managers. Manannan67 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something to think about. When is it appropriate to create the pages: days, weeks, months, years after consecration/installation? Are we regressing to days of missing/old information? Roberto221 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if notability is established by the announcement of their appointment, then it is appropriate to create the article at that time. Otherwise, no clue. Elizium23 (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should note that there will be some with existing articles (such as Robert Barron) when nominated, obviously those should be retained. There is also more than a decent chance (I'll try to add some % in the next day or so, I think under 50% for USA) that will later be named the Ordinary of a diocese. --Dcheney (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Insider information, huh? I'll make the changes when announced. Thanks..Roberto221 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Barron has been a bishop for five years. Before that, he was quite famous for his "Word on Fire" and "Catholicism" series, so naturally he had an article. Nothing about his status is changing and David is not necessarily privy to anything else. Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to be clear, the reference to their own diocese was meant for Auxiliary Bishops in general, not the random example I chose. --Dcheney (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had a chance to run some rough stats. From 1900 to 1999, there were 541 Auxiliary Bishops named to US dioceses. Of those, at least 338 were later named to their own diocese (62%). --Dcheney (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep weather any auxiliary bishop is notable is not the question here. We clearly have enough sources on Fernandez to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is the question here. After all, DGG said this is a test case. What if we began nominating many other aux bishops, would all survive? Elizium23 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general, if you search the next day for any newly named Auxiliary Bishop worldwide, you will find at least a handful of articles in various regular news outlets. I think the better question is how many regular news articles do you find 5 years after their appointment. --Dcheney (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might say that auxiliary bishops could be covered by WP:BLP1E - the only thing in their lives that garners coverage is their appointment! Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we "clearly have enough sources" at all. The sourcing, in both quality and quantity, falls far below our standards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not the problem here, you can always add the Vatican Press Releases plus local newspapers/Television as well as the Archdiocese/Diocese web sites. I just don't "oversource" the same materiel. And those standards are what? Roberto221 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have articles on most suffragan bishops in the Anglican Church, so that I do not see why not Auxiliary bishops in the Catholic Church. Strictly he will not be a bishop until formally consecrated as such, due about 5 weeks hence, but it is pointless to delete an article which would need to be re-created next month. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DGG is right to bring this here for discussion. I think Elizium23 has hit it on the head. The only thing that garners temporary coverage is their appointment and as Roscelese noted, this is not widespread coverage to our standards. The appointment of an Archbishop is one thing. That garners real coverage, not just the Catholic Review or the Archdioceses' own newspaper. This seems a WP:BLP1E in my view. Also, the reference to the Anglican Church is not an equivalent hierarchy. Bodding (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to go that far, what about state legislators, and congressional representatives? Majority of their pages only have a bio, and career. They're not mentioned unless they sponsor/introduce some "newsworthy" legislation that garners in the press. Roberto221 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are too closely related to the subject. The very basic criteria for GNG is not met here.4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first press release comes from: A)the Vatican, B)the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, C)the diocese which they're appointed to, D)the diocese which they're from, E)local media. Which source makes it not "too closely related"? Roberto221 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A, B, C, and D are all publications generated by the Catholic Church itself and are therefore not independent of the subject. At the time I reviewed the article there were no sources from local media. There still aren't.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's nominated to be the auxiliary bishop of the Roman Catholic church in all of Long Island, NY, a very large diocese, and will be consecrated within a month. FWIW, I am Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- we need to start regarding church related publications the same as we do any other. Keeping this article on the basis of the church related publications could help set establish this. Also, Kingiron suggests that keeping this article will allow the website to treat the denominations equally, and I agree.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer. I don't see how an article based entirely on sources produced by the Catholic Church could meet the independent sourcing criteria for WP:N. This would be like allowing business publications by a corporation to source an article on that corporation. It just doesn't make sense.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, are publications by the Catholic Church reliable? Maybe they are, but they are definitely not independent sources in this situation, and therefore do not help establish notability for this person. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess when a highly prized rookie makes it to the "Big Leagues", the sports leagues, teams, and sports sites are also not independent sources? Roberto221 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Question regarding whether sources are independent are in debate. Giving it a bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, for the article in question there are 6 current sources: two are from Newsday, a general purpose newspaper in Long Island; one from the USCCB, one from the Archdiocese, one from notimerica (portal of Europa Press), and one from Diario de Cádiz. Of those, only 2 are Catholic sources. --Dcheney (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's enough coverage here for WP:GNG and not just an WP:OUTCOMES-based keep based on his new (or soon to be) bishop title. But also, re the WP:BLP1E argument raised by Elizium23: As former head of UTPL he arguably also passes WP:PROF#C6, and (if one can find it amid the new-bishop news coverage) there's also news coverage of his role there, for instance [2] [3] [4] [5]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, Okay, so keep for the specific case, but what about the general case? This is also a test balloon for Catholic auxiliaries in general. Not many of them will pass WP:PROF. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but they're all going to be prominent churchmen who have held other important positions before being raised to bishop. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Comments made by David Eppstein are persuasive. It should be noted that the sourcing examples provided are all from the same source (La Hora), and while possibly acceptable for content, only count as one towards advancing notability. In cases of auxiliary or assistant bishops in general there needs to be more than a general presumption of notability for inclusion. "Prominent churchmen who have held other important positions" would need significant coverage in reliable sources if notability is not clear according to WP:PROF, especially when offering a subject holds are held a "Prestigious position". WP:NBISHOP is certainly "just an essay" but the criteria there (WikiProject Catholicism Notability guide) is relevant just as with WP:CLERGY. Otr500 (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They're mostly only in La Hora because after finding one story in that newspaper I searched for more in the same site to find stories from other parts of his time at UTPL. There are similar stories in other sources e.g. [6] [7].
Keep This is a WP:BASIC pass, maybe not by much, because despite the quantity of sources provided in this AFD few qualify as independent SIGCOV, but there is enough. This is also a borderline WP:NPROF pass as mentioned above. I sympathize with the concerns raised by Elizium23 above regarding the larger issues at play here. However, as they say in legal-speak, this case is a poor vehicle for modifying precedent. Suggest that the WP:BLP1E concern be raised for this area at an appropriate central discussion forum instead. Spectrum ((UV)) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Triolo[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, one newsworthy event does not create notbility, article appears to have been created for the sole purpose of publicizing the event Donald Albury 23:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lake Worth Beach FL is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on all of its mayors just for existing as mayors, but the article is not sourced well enough to demonstrate that she would pass the actual notability bar for mayors. The nationalized coverage that she has just makes her a WP:BLP1E, and has not yet risen to the level of making her nationally or internationally notable enough to pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person --Dreamanderson (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was likely created in response to a viral news story about the mayor, but she is a non-notable person --Nicholemacgregor (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and all significant coverage related to one event. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have placed the article under extended confirmed protection for two days because of repeated BLP violations by IP editors. Editors who do not have extended confirmed status, and who wish to improve the article, may make a request on the talk page of the article describing what changes they wish to see in the article. - Donald Albury 16:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ONEEVENT. Triolo is the mayor of a smallish town in Florida. She is nothing more than a local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of human evolution fossils (single table)[edit]

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

Work was done on List of human evolution fossils to make this page possible and I find it an interesting approach for transclusion, but I don't know the encyclopedic value and don't see other "single table" pages (not that WP:OTHERSTUFF would be a valid argument). Ost (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need more lists since List of human evolution fossils exists. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 605 (Saudi Arabia)[edit]

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

Doing a google search of " "Highway 605" saudi arabia " (without the outer quotes) leads to nothing. Currently article has no citations. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-01 ✍️ create, 2020-01 move to → Draft:Highway 605 (Saudi Arabia)

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) 06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Huizhou[edit]

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

See [8], the deletion discussion happening that relates to this one. Onl y source provided redirects to the Wikipedia page on Taiwan. Would encourage a native Chinese user to check for sources though as my struggle to find any might be because I'm doing primarily an English language search. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other AfD discussion about articles about dubious battles from this editor. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for nominating this. I've indeed found similar problems on other articles from the same editor. b uidhe 05:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 A.F.C. Telford United season[edit]

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

User:TBJApple was asked not to create season articles for non-league football, but here we are again, article violates WP:NSEASONS, WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, and edit. Unless there is a another article about this team.New3400 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@New3400: ? That's the standard name for a season article! The team is A.F.C. Telford United which has it's own club page... I am still confused by your suggestions, have you reviewed this AfD correctly? Govvy (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. Don't understand New3400's comment at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. Did not know there was a 2nd article about the team. Changing to Delete.New3400 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One article is about the team (overall). The other is about one specific season in the team's history. The latter is not "a 2nd article about the team" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. New3400 (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Schlotheuber[edit]

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

Only sources I could find are interviews and her publications. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR; here a review: EVA SCHLOTHEUBER. Klostereintritt und Bildung: Die Lebenswelt der Nonnen im späten Mittelalter, in the American Historical Review. Another: Reviews: Klostereintritt und Bildung: Die Lebenswelt der Nonnen im späten Mittelalter. Eva Schlotheuber, in Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies. More reviews are likely to be available. According to this source: [9], Schlotheuber is the president of the Verband der Historiker und Historikerinnen Deutschlands [de] (Association of German Historians), which adds to her notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added many reviews of her books (maybe not the same as the ones listed above) to the article, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. Additionally the presidency that K.e.coffman mentions may be enough for WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:NAUTHOR pass. Don't forget to check for book reviews before AfD nomination! b uidhe 17:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah didn't see the book reviews. Could someone close it as speedy keep now? I'll withdraw the nomination. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estanislao Fernández[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. KidAd (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the fact that he is the president's son nor that he is a drag queen meet notability criteria. --MewMeowth (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Numerous sources mention him; however, they all mention him in terms of his father and do not provide a level of coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC. Quintessential WP:NOTINHERITED. userdude 08:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have consitently said we should not create articles on people who are non-notable relatives of others. This also violates the basics of rules against one event notability. When the clothes someone wore at one event are the full source of all their coverage they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete, with none of the keep votes making any serious attempt to discuss quality of sources available. The table is in this instance useful in summarising existing sources. None of them in themselves indicate GNG. No harm in recreating if additional sources can be provided to show GNG. Fenix down (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arianna Criscione[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:NCOLLATH; news coverage all routine for WP:GNG Mightytotems (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in a top tier league (Division 1 Féminine). Meets WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silverseren^C 05:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing in a top division does not mean a player meets WP:NFOOTY. The league has to be fully-professional, which Division 1 Féminine is not. Number 5 7 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails WP:NFOOTY despite the above claim. Criscione has never played in a fully professional league or for a senior international side. WP:GNG is also failed. Dougal18 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Playing in a top-tier league is irrelevant, the league must be fully professional (which hers is not). See WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we should further limit default notability for all sports to the top league of that sport in that country, and of course they must be fully pro, but this article does not even meet our current too broad inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Too broad inclusion criteria for male players, you mean? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A long career in leagues just outside the arbitrary Wiki-notable list will often throw up plenty of sustained coverage. See for example Ryan-Zico Black. We don't always need to be so rigidly dogmatic about these things. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She plays in the top-tier league in France. (She has tons of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who has played sparingly in several European top-division leagues and made the substitute's bench for Italy's national team, but isn't the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I've summarized the most significant online coverage I could find from Dutch-, English-, French-, Italian-, and Swedish-language sources in the table below, and I don't believe it is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.ouest-france.fr/bretagne/saint-malo-35400/quatre-recrues-pour-renforcer-l-us-saint-malo-5185322	Ouest-France is an independent newspaper	National newspaper (most widely circulated French-language newspaper in the world)	? The source discusses the subject directly but in little detail (she is one of four recruits discussed)	? Unknown
https://sportdonna.it/sportdonna-interview-kungsbacka-criscione-voglio-tornare-in-nazionale/	? Sport Donna is an independent website, but the article is an interview with Criscione	? Website editor appears to have expertise in Italian football and previously worked for the Corriere Mercantile newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
https://www.lesportaufeminin.fr/2019/07/18/une-gardienne-experimentee-debarque-au-paris-saint-germain/	Independent website	Author appears to have expertise in French football and also works for the Monaco Tribune newspaper	The source discusses the subject directly but not in detail (2 paragraphs)	✘ No
https://www.leprogres.fr/sports/2015/01/17/arianna-l-ange-gardienne	Le Progrès is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper for Rhône-Alpes	? The source appears to discuss the subject directly and but the article is hidden behind a paywall	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Speedy keep - Quick Google search shows she easily passes GNG, which takes precedence over NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you found sources which go towards meeting the GNG, would you please add to the table above (or at least provide a link, and I will do so)? I did more than a quick Google search and reached the conclusion that the GNG is not easily met (if at all). Jogurney (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per KingSkyLord. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to Kingdom Rush. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironhide Game Studio[edit]

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

A promotionally-toned article about a video game company that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches have provided this source, which provides some coverage, but the article is not entirely about the company, and it's arguable whether or not this constitutes significant coverage. Regardless, notability standards require two or more independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, but WP:BEFORE source searches are not providing anything else of this nature. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the company probably isn't notable just from what I'm seeing in the WP:VGSE, but there is a viable redirect target at Kingdom Rush. --Izno (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP — sources do not provide in-depth information on the company. userdude 07:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Disregarding the socks and/or meatpuppets, there is consensus that he's not currently notable enough for an article. It's up to editors (genuine editors, not people associated with Marshall) about whether some content about him should be added to The Washington State Three Percenters. Sandstein 07:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Marshall (politician)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline for politicians or the general notability guideline. Marshall has been the subject of slightly more press attention than most school board members running for state legislatures, and is occasionally quoted in reliable sources as a spokesperson for his organisation, but neither amounts to significant coverage. (This was prodded a month ago by SounderBruce and deprodded by the article creator.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article is blatantly just his own campaign material and blatantly fails NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Article reads like a campaign brochure. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 13:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being a school board trustee nor being an as yet unelected candidate in a state legislature election are notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia — a person passes our inclusion criteria for politicians by holding a notable political office, not just by running for one. But there's no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, the amount of coverage shown here is not enough to make his candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies, and the article is written more like a campaign brochure than like a neutral or objective encyclopedia article. As always, no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is enough to already get him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear case of WP:TOOSOON for me. --Dreamanderson (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Marshall is the founder of the controversial group, The Washington State Three Percenters; he is a staunch supporter of Matt Shea, who was involved a scandal; he is leading a grassroots movement to remove the State Attorney General Bob Ferguson from office; and he is running for State Representative.

Wikipedia guidelines state, “Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline)

Below is a list of articles where Marshall is discussed, and sometimes the topic of the article. These are all from all suitable, independent sources that I believe are sufficiently reliable for the purpose showing notability.

At least two (NPR and The Guardian) are discussed on Wikipedia’s Project Page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) The Guardian is considered reliable. NPR is generally considered reliable, although with the caveat that the discussions of its reliability are “dated.” Regardless, it seems the fact that NPR is writing about Matt Marshall supports claims that this is notable subject.

Other sources are not listed on the page, but obviously the list is not meant to be an all inclusive list.

The Olympian, The News Tribune and The Seattle Times all have Wikipedia pages and have been around since the 1800’s. The fact that they are writing about Marshall shows notability.

Mary Wilkes (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political candidates are not exempted from having to pass WP:NPOL just because some campaign coverage exists — some campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere, because local media have a legal obligation to give coverage to all candidates in all elections in their coverage areas. So the key to exempting a political candidate from having to win the election first is not just to show that some campaign coverage exists, it's to show that his candidacy is so much more special than everybody else's candidacy that even if he died tomorrow and thus never accomplished anything else he would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. Keeping an article about every single person who ever ran for any political office in the world is not our job: we keep articles about holders of notable political offices, not unelected candidates for them, so candidates are not automatically exempted from having to win the election and thereby hold the office just because some campaign coverage exists.

People are also not notable just because their name gets mentioned in coverage of other things, nor are they notable just for leading recall campaigns or for supporting other people. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat (talk) Thank you for your feedback on this article. However, I think you misunderstood. I don’t find Marshall notable just because he is running for office. There are a lot of people running for office. I find Marshall notable because of his political activism. Five of the articles I found about Marshall don’t even mention that he is running for office.

I am not the only one to find Marshall notable. The Guardian wrote two articles (I said one earlier, but I found another) about Marshall almost a full year before he announced he was running for Washington State Congress. The Guardian is not some local newspaper. It is a 200-year old British newspaper. I would argue that if a prestigious foreign newspaper is writing multiple articles about a person, that is pretty notable.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/03/three-percent-far-right-leftwing-gun-groups

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/22/washington-state-county-sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-gun-laws

Even the NPR article, which was written about a month after Marshall announce his campaign barely mentioned his run for office. (It is mentioned in paragraph 15 of the article.)

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/14/805949683/-not-a-paramilitary-inside-a-washington-militias-efforts-to-go-mainstream

 Mary Wilkes (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Washington State Three Percenters. At this moment, the subject fails WP:NPOL. That said, it is hard to see how the subject does not pass WP:GNG with the combination of the NPR feature, international coverage of the movement in the Guardian and the local press (both of the subject's school board run and the subject's challenge to the Republican leader in the Washington State House of Representatives). Even if the consensus is that the subject is WP:TOOSOON, there is not question that the subject is associated with the Washington State Three Percenters and this page should redirect to the movement. --Enos733 (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:TOOSOON and then redirect Washington State Three Percenters. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing in this article violates ANY policy or terms. This article contains factual information regarding a person of notoriety. There are people who support him and people who do not support him. Regardless of support, that reason alone does not constitute removing information about a person. The call to remove the information is simply a smear campaign by those who are opposed to this person referenced, and that in itself does NOT justify removal by Wikipedia's Terms or Policies. JamesQuayle3 (talk)

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this Afd. GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

keep I find this article notable. Matt Marshall has begun making an impression in Washington State. People from all political beliefs are learning his name and what he stands for. This is an important figure to have accessible information to. The articla in noo way infringes on Wikipedia's policies of conduct. SteveTheScholar (talk)

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this Afd. GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I find that this article follows guidelines on being notable. While some may argue in Privous comments like “article reads like a campaign brochure” or that the person this article is about is “neither being a school board trustee nor being an as yet unelected candidate in a state legislature election are notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia” these arguments are not sufficient to remove this article per WP:N As this article isn’t a advertisement, or a self promotion. And per WP:NTEMP states that notability isn’t temporary. And in the guidline per WP:N it dose not require the person to have held or is holding any type of office

The minimum it requires is per WP:NPOL states “Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” and Matt marshal falls into these lines as there are many independent articles that prove that Matt Marshall has had significant and still has significant attention both independentally and politically. As per, http://www.yelmonline.com/news/article_c6874ad0-3d7c-11ea-96e6-db58294c8977.html https://www.inlander.com/spokane/gun-toting-shea-supporters-prompt-democratic-proposal-to-restrict-guns-in-washington-state-capitol/Content?oid=19046405 http://www.thereflector.com/news/article_2779f0ac-f4e8-5de5-9761-4e85ff92c1e4.html https://lmtribune.com/northwest/rep-matt-shea-talks-of-nation-s-real-enemies/article_f196f233-272e-50cb-ad6b-2 https://www.scribd.com/article/447080380/Not-A-Paramilitary-Inside-A-Washington-Militia-s-Efforts-To-Go-Mainstream https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article239335908.html https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/black-diamond-council-member-identified-as-a-three-percenter-what-does-that-mean/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das360011 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this Afd. GPL93 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The article is well written, factual, informative, and within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Matt Marshall is well known in Washington State for his exemplary military service, his political activities, and staunch support of individual rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgbies (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this Afd. GPL93 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'"keep'"
Merge or Redirect to Washington State Three Percenters. Most of the coverage revolves around his association with the group he founded. The article would need serious work if kept and it seems there is a bit of REFBOMBing going on here. I think we should probably just redirect until the election; if he wins, we can recreate it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know Matt personally and believe this page is an accurate representation of him and his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbo360 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this Afd. GPL93 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia does not keep articles just because random people assert that they know the subject personally. We keep or delete articles based on whether the subject clears our notability criteria or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino Force[edit]

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

A commendable outfit, and nice to see a large business putting its money where it does some good; but sufficient coverage there is not. I'm seeing one okay write-up [10] but otherwise I can't find any reputable third-party sourcing. Not yet ripe for an article, I'm afraid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found this [11] source that may be about Rhino Force, but I can't tell — it's in German and behind a paywall. The GNews blurb reads Der Koordinator der „Hemmersbach Rhino Force“ weiß, dass jede Minute zählt. Wenn möglich, nimmt die Polizei vor Ort Ranger für Verhaftungen. !Voting weak delete for now; unless this source is indeed significantly about Rhino Force, it fails WP:GNG for me. userdude 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this might constitute good coverage. I'm not signing up for that either, however :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Evans Behling[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, could not find any significant coverage solely about the actor; all the coverage relates to the subject's work and related events, mere passing mentions. The only independent sources here is the interview, and that's primary. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known actor starring on current network television series. Outside of a couple 'CW PR posted as news story on CW affiliate website' links, I find no issues with the plentiful for their WP:N sources given, considering they're a supporting actor on this series rather than a main lead. Nate • (chatter) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few fluffy cover refs in the article now as the two from The Republic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Weak Keep or Redirect or Draftify: ~~It seems a little bit WP:TOOSOON; after all, the subject has only had one significant role in a notable production. His notability profile does seem to be rising, however, so~~ I wouldn't be averse to "draftifying" the article, if the consensus is to "delete". There are some sources out there which provide more than mere mentions, including a Deadline Hollywood article, and they put the subject on the verge of WP:GNG, in my opinion. I would point out, though, that I disagree with the implication by the nominator that the sources have to be solely about the subject in order to meet the notability standards. Another solution would be to "redirect" the article to All American (TV series) (again, provided that the consensus tends towards a "delete"). Dflaw4 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have upgraded my vote to a "Weak Keep" because I just realised that WP:NACTOR wasn't brought up by the nominator as a contentious issue. The only issue brought up is that of sourcing, and I don't think that that is too big a problem. In addition, editors are actively improving the article. In the unlikely event that this AfD is closed as a "Delete", I still maintain that "Draftifying" or "Redirecting" is appropriate. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:BASIC with multiple reliable sources coverage such as The Republic, CW Atlanta, Decider, People Magazine, and others all in the article, so although it is early in his career he is notable and should be included in my view, Atlantic306 (talk)
Keep seems to pass WP:BASIC, although his notability is still rising. If it is deleted, I agree that it should be saved as a draft. Mukedits (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 06:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mobio Besse Henri[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NBOX. Possible WP:GNG fail; can’t find any significant coverage in English and given his record/achievements, I doubt there’s any in French...but I don’t speak French.~~ ².O.^Boxing 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Because, who really gives a shit?

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) 06:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Big Science[edit]

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

Not sufficiently broad or well-defined for an outline. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vagueness of the term "Big Science" translates to a vagueness of the area this outline is supposed to cover, and this list does not seem to be serving a useful navigational purpose. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see what this is really adding to Big Science, which already covers the topic. Any elements missing from that article can just be added in directly rather than added to this outline. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camel Hump, Wyoming[edit]

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

This is just a flat-out mistake in compiling GNIS. The 1972 topo shows this as a very minor named hill, complete with elevation. Aerial photos show nothing to dispute this: there is just nothing at all around except a road which eventually passes the Camels Hump Reservoir a ways to the east. It's baldly obvious that there never was a "populated place" here by any standard; except for the road and the reservoir the area looks utterly undisturbed. Mangoe (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or possibly merge if there is a suitable target). It might not be a community (which error needs correcting), but it is a named feature that appears in multiple hiking guides. We at least know who named it and when. It is also repeatedly mentioned in The Geomorphology of the Wyoming-Lackawanna Region. SpinningSpark 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the "The Geomorphology of the Wyoming-Lackawanna Region" is for Wyoming County, Pennsylvania and Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. Cxbrx (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck what has turned out to be an ill-considered comment. SpinningSpark 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark: Not to worry. Thanks for taking the time to look for sources. I made a similar mistake recently with Parks Place, Mississippi. Cxbrx (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here's a picture of a Camel Hump at Lizard Head Peak, the one mentioned in Spinningspark's first link, but it's in a different location from the one in the article. The second link is about the Wyoming-Lackawanna Region of Pennsylvania... Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, do we/should we have an article on the Camel Hump discussed above? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not a populated place. The geographic feature has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our requirements for WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swaim Place, Wyoming[edit]

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

"Place" usually means "ranch", and it appears to be the case here, though in the end I could not verify that the "place" existed at all. There's no trace of it in any aerial that I looked at, and searching produced even less than usual; it's nothing more than a single building box on the topo map. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a ranch, no newspapers.com results. Reywas92^Talk 20:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YAR - Yet Another Ranch. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our requirements for WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat 003 – Momentum[edit]

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

No significant coverage. No reviews. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jalen. I made this article a while ago and it was based off of its two prior albums. All three of these articles should have been deleted a long time ago. Micro (Talk) 22:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find any sources supporting WP:GNG. userdude 07:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The album did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat 002 – Early Stage[edit]

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

No significant coverage. No reviews. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jalen. There are no secondary sources talking about the album as the focus point, only primary sources and small references in secondary. Micro (Talk) 22:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find any sources supporting WP:GNG. userdude 07:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The album has not been discussed in reliable sources by way of critical reviews. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monstercat 001 – Launch Week[edit]

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

No significant coverage. No reviews. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jalen. Very limited amount of reliable secondary sources and there's just an overabundance of primary links. Micro (Talk) 22:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find any sources supporting WP:GNG. userdude 07:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cock Sparrer (album)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Could find no sources meeting notability criteria for either Cock Sparrer (album) or True Grit (album). CBS527^Talk 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CBS527^Talk 17:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:G4 by User:DGG. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka sen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anushka sen

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

Dosent satisfy WP:ENT. WP:TOOSOON. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per WP:CSD#G4 as the subject of this page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Sen due to a lack of notability and this version does not address this issue. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and seasoning will be applied. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

New wave of promotional COI editing in an attempt to show that the festivals are notable, despite multiple AFDs AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DPIFF awards and DPIFF were AFDed back in August 2019 and December 2019. There is also a Draft: Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival created in January 2020. Another option is to merge some of the verbiage to Dadasaheb Phalke Award#Similarly named awards AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate

It is clearly mentioned in the article that this is different from the Dadasaheb Phalke Award.
Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival is a organisation which does Award function twice in a year.
It was earlier nominated for deletion due to lack of content but now it is well adequate with the content.
This page should be created on wikipedia to let others know that Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival is different from the official Dadasaheb Phalke Award which will help avoid major confusion. User:abhialmish —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The film festival article does not need a disambiguation. It has a different enough name not to confuse. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhialmish: The previous articles were not deleted because they lacked content, or because they were similarly named to another article. They were only deleted because the subject of the article was not notable. For more information, kindly read: WP:Notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Keep’’’ I believe this article is suitable for the inclusion on Wikipedia as it is created by me after a thorough research on news, web, television, social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvati.sunder (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Clear from the last few noms this is a non-notable festival using the name of a figure who has died and the award named in their honor to market their non-notable knockoff film fest; the 'not to be confused' in this case seems very intentional to confuse everyone. A ping of @Cyphoidbomb: since they seem experienced with this issue. Nate • (chatter) 20:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - No evidence of any notability for this relatively new film festival which I previously nominated for deletion and where the decision was Delete. The refs all appear to be based on press releases. Nothing substantial found in searches. Very high probability of COI authorship and of socking. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete and salt per nom and the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt: the festival is still not notable. Also per my own comments at both the previous AfD's. Especially at this AfD. While we are at it; kindly delete, and salt Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable as of yet. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment: both the non-delete voters have been blocked for sock puppetry. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G5. -- Java Hurricane 05:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JavaHurricane: its been a while. I think we should let the AfD run its course to prove the festival as non-notable, to cement the fact. We can use the G5s next time. I have a doubt there would be many. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to G5G4 this twice, but the editor undid it multiple times and it wasn't clear this was identical to the previous versions since a seemingly different editor had written it up, different from the one pushing it into the mainspace and stopping the G5s. (this was before both were sock blocked) You also may want to consider the version HERE that was posted before I reorganized it into a more sensible paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: hi. G4 is for recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, and G5 is for any page created by previously blocked/banned user. Similarity is required for G4. But under G5, even an article passing GNG, created for first time can be deleted under

—usernamekiran (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

usernamekiran, you're right. I meant G4. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please see WP:DADASAHEB, excerpt: the Dadasaheb Phalke Award is a sub-award of the Indian government's National Film Awards. It is essentially a lifetime achievement award honouring a person's "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema". (Disclosure, I wrote this content.) There are a number of award mills that use Phalke's name to bestow awards. That doesn't mean they are notable. It's likely just a cash grab like most award mills, and in most cases, the media is actually confused by the Dada Saheb name, some outlets failing to distinguish between the knock-offs and the established award, and I think these mills count on that confusion. I highly recommend that anyone else voting see the write-up at WP:DADASAHEB. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - WP:DADASAHEB, As discussed before. Sid95Q (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sevaqk[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I was unable to find any significant biographical details in reliable sources. Moreover, music producers are out-of-scope of WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music producers are out of scope from WP:MUSICBIO? What scope are they under then? He's has numerous produced singles that have made the UK OCC Charts. This is probably his most notable work. TwinTurbo (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his got production on Game Over (EP), He produced The Answer (Example song), and he has appeared on the internet web series; Corner Shop Show. TwinTurbo (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if music producers were included under WP:MUSICBIO, in this case there still isn't any biographical information that would allow the subject to be included. Your link to "his most notable work" (apart from Genius not being a reliable source) is limited entirely to a couple of lines of AJ Tracey saying that Sevaqk has "some good beats" on his laptop. That's it. The OCC sources, which are the only acceptable ones, don't mention him at all. Richard3120 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. He has produced some chart hits, but there's no reliable sources that provide any information on Sevacq beyond that. Richard3120 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deependra Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, I was unable to find any reliable sources that indicate notability. Antila333 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a teenager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source appears to be a potentially self-published Medium article, and the three remaining sources appear to be about completely different people who have the same name. I'd hate to assume it's in an effort to deceive, but either way there is effectively no legitimate third-party source material in the article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete under G5 per the history of Draft:Deependra Singh. The creator appears to have a conflict of interest. They first hijacked the redirect just like blocked user Rajeshkumar999 and Businesswriterseo and after their edits were reverted they moved it to draftspace and hijacked again. GSS ^💬 17:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check Added More references. Perfectindianwriter (talk) 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Not one of the three references you added are reliable or indicate notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Prasad[edit]

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

non notable author - appears to be published by a vanity publisher or possibly self publisher, hasn't received any reviews from major outlets that would indicate notability and there is no coverage of Prasad otherwise. Also bundling the book which has no coverage.Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Praxidicae. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. None of works have been critically reviewed. The references cited in the article are primary or unreliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Given that the first AfD was 12 years ago (a lot has changed about our view of notability since then) and the second one had far smaller participation than this one, I didn't give much weight to, "we've already kept this twice" arguments. But, even with that, I still can't quite get to a consensus for deletion. Basically, the delete side is saying this is poorly sourced trivia/cruft, and the keep side says this is a useful navigation aide and the sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:NLIST. Some people suggested a merge, but others argued that you can't merge unsourced material. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional counties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A completely reasonable redirect to Fictional location, proposed earlier by Hijiri88 was reverted by Andy Dingley. The content here is trivial and unverified, with the majority of entries having no independent notability and certainly no secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible sockpuppetry involved in this page's current status aside (who on earth is Hunter12396!?), this page is nothing but unsourced fancruft. In the previous AFD there were only four keep !votes, of which two were classic ILIKEIT and a third was HELIKESITANDIAGREE, which IMO is "No consensus" at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hijiri88, this is not the place for casting aspersions and making vague accusations of sockpuppeting. Either go to ANI with that, or drop it here. Do not make any such accusations, or you will be the one at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you were the one behind that super-suspicious account that kept reverting me, or if it was someone else, or if it was just some new user engaged in extremely questionable behaviour. The latter seems quite unlikely. Either way, I was not the one to bring up the possibility that you were the one who reverted my redirecting of the article, and I don't appreciate you choosing to go out of your way for the sole purpose of making this personal -- when a suspicious new account has been the article's sole defender for the better part of a year, that is very relevant when it comes to AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD discussion was less than two years ago and was a unanimous Keep. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD cannot, by definition, be a "unanimous Keep". If we threw out the weird ILIKEIT and HELIKESITANDIAGREE comments, it was at best 1 for deletion and 1 for keeping. Add me onto that pro-delete count (I was aware of the AFD at the time but stayed away because one of the ILIKEIT !voters was engaged in a harassment campaign against me at the time and I decided not to stoke the flames by chiming in) and that's 2-1 in favour of deletion/redirecting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD. Also please refresh your familiarity with WP:LISTN and our accepted practice for notability of lists and particularly the sourcing requirements of bluelinks in list articles. No-one is against adding sources here, especially not for the entries which aren't linked. But this is no reason to delete the whole article. Nor is it an excuse, per WP:PRESERVE, for the immediate blanking of all the unlinked items. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments are a bit yawn-inducing, so I'll respond with an equally yawn-inducing truism: redirection is not deletion. Feel free to work on an actual article in your userspace. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bluelinks? There's only a dozen in there. PRESERVE is really just another excuse. If you want this preserved, do the work. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These kinds of lists are very ill-defined for inclusion criteria and full of trivial information. The potential to list fictional items is near infinite. If you reduce it to actual articles, then you're left with a tiny, pointless list. TTN (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"ill-defined for inclusion criteria "? "fictional counties" seems pretty clear to me. Which ones do you think are dubious? And why would such dubious entries (if they exist) affect the list overall?

"full of trivial information" Such as?

" If you reduce it to actual articles" So you're claiming that the county of Midsomer needs to go, because the article is on the TV series of Midsomer Murders instead? Do you doubt that Midsomer, a fictional county, is actually part of that? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what is included in the article, there is no established threshold. Is it all fictional counties? Is it fictional counties mentioned in a reliable source? Is it fictional counties mentioned in a blue link series? Is it blue links only? In terms of fiction, blue links only seems to be the only objective criteria of importance. Otherwise, you have an unwieldy, near infinite list. Trivial information is that which does not fit an established inclusion threshold, so, in my opinion, most of this list. TTN (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about inclusion criteria? (which are obvious) notability criteria? (which don't matter, that's fundamental for our list practice) or else verifiability? Now, yes, WP:V does require us to achieve verifiability for anything challenged (nothing here has been challenged, just a handwave to delete the whole list). But none of the entries here look particularly dubious or challengeable, nearly all are bluelinked to a fictional work (for which we've long accepted transitive sourcing on list articles) and there is no reason why the particular county has to itself be a bluelink. If sourcing presents itself, everyone would welcome that being added. If there are any which actually appear doubtful, then challenge them (still waiting...). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to establish inclusion criteria before anything else can be discussed. Do you think that any county that appears in a blue link work on Wikipedia should be listed? I think that's way too broad, but it gives us a starting point for discussion. TTN (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Eight blue link to actual articles, the other blue links just redirects. So its a valid list article, it aids in navigation. Any entry that is not notable enough to have its own article or a significant amount about it in another article, can be removed. Dream Focus 19:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another laundry list of bare mentions, only a select few have articles (and their own notability is questionable). Ajf773 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely containing a few blue links is not sufficient to "aid in navigation", needs to demonstrate that people need to navigate from one fictional county to another. We get it, authors, filmmakers, TV writers, playwrights, etc make fictional characters who have fictional jobs in fictional places including fictional towns, counties, and countries. But there's no relationship between these places nor coverage of the significance of fictional counties as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fictional location, but just the handful of notable entries: Wessex, Barsetshire, Yoknapatawpha County and a few others, i.e. those that are the setting for multiple major works by important writers. There aren't enough of those for a standalone list IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've already discussed this twice before and the result was Keep both times. Starting a third discussion is vexatious per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The suggested alternative of fictional location seems quite poor, having but one source and little content for such an ambitious scope. The page in question is better established, better sourced and better structured. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work, so get rid of it. Seriously, Mallardshire? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've already discussed this twice before and the result was Keep both times The first result was more than a decade ago and the second needs to be disregarded as a "keep" result (as opposed to a "no consensus" result) because it was a 4-1 !vote-count and ... well, I was forced to stay away due to James500's harassment, Drmies apparently didn't know about it at the time (my feelings on these kinds of "articles" were picked up from him, not vice-versa, so he definitely would have supported deletion if he had been there), James500 hadn't "retired" in order to avoid a deletion TBAN yet, and one of the others just said he agreed with you. Even disregarding all the other factors, those variable factors reversed, it would have been at least 3-2 in favour of deletion, and you know that (despite WP:PNSD) if someone ignored a 3-2 vote-count favouring keep by refusing to simply count votes and closing as delete anyway, you would immediately file a DRV claiming either that a 3-2 majority means the result should be keep or that such a vote split should default to "no consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the first AfD is no longer relevant. However, your suggestion that we should disregard the second AfD because, among other reasons, you did not participate... yeah, that's laughable. While I strongly disagree with Andrew's claim that this is discussion is vexatious -- more than enough time has elapsed since the lone still-relevant AfD -- we are not in the business of reinterpreting how prior discussions might have gone in a hypothetical scenario. The prior discussion is valid and not binding, and this discussion should have been opened before anyone tried to redirect the article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm afraid I can see absolutely no reason to delete this article. It meets all the criteria for lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the reasons already given? The near-complete lack of sourcing? The fact that no reliable sources actually discuss the concept of "fictional counties"? The fact that such a concept doesn't actually exist, since "county" is a vague term used in a variety of different real-world countries to mean any number of types of administrative or other divisions? I've seen the Japanese word gun translated "county" and I'm sure there are plenty of Japanese fictional works that describe fictional gun, but they would not have anything in common with either the American or Brythono-Irish counties currently listed in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which are, strangely enough, called counties in English! I see no counties on the list that are not called counties in English. So your point seems utterly irrelevant, frankly. As to sourcing, published works are sources in their own right. We don't need another source to tell us that something is included in a published work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which are, strangely enough, called counties in English! I see no counties on the list that are not called counties in English. ...did you not understand my comment? My point was precisely that since just about everything can be called a county in English, the inclusion criteria are meaningless. (Also, per the recent edit history, the definition of "fictional" also seems to be in dispute, further undermining the inclusion criteria.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did understand your comment, thank you for being patronising. My point is that while many things may be called a county in translation, this list only includes entities that are called counties in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From the looks of it, this is intended to be a list of all fictional counties (?!), i.e. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Definite WP:LISTN/WP:SALAT problems, given unclear inclusion criteria (unless it really is all). Not a source in the bunch, making it a fandom collection of trivia. Lists don't always have to include only notable examples, but most absolutely should, and there needs to be a good reason why we would include all of something (like those reasons in WP:CSC, but certainly not arbitrary whims of the editors absent any sourcing at all). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note One of the "keep" !voters has been engaging in pretty blatant counter-policy edit(-warr)ing on the article itself.[12][13] This is not an argument for deletion in itself, but it does gel with their apparent lack of understanding of policy demonstrated in their activity in this AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "fictional"? @Andy Dingley: You have insisted (in the edit summary of the second diff above) that an entry on a placeholder county name used in security simulations belongs on the list because it is "invented". This seems like a questionable inclusion criterion -- every other entry on the list appears to be a non-existent administrative region referred to as a "county" in a work of fiction. If the list has flimsy inclusion criteria like that it can include placeholder names used in real-world simulations, of entities referred to by the already-vague term "county", then that surely counts as an argument against the article itself being kept, as its inclusion criteria are so broad as to be meaningless, no?

Moreover, you argued in both the above edit summaries that it belongs in the list because it is "sourced", but hardly any of the other entries (most of which actually are about legit fictional locations!) are sourced -- are you saying that the entries that haven't been covered in reliable secondary sources should be removed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri, I have asked you repeatedly to stop making personal comment on editors rather than on the article or the merits of the AfD. "your slimy indirect harassment". Your reply that to that was another sheer ad hominem.

As to the issue here, these are fictional counties, i.e. ones which have been invented for some creative reason, rather than based on concrete geography. We do not filter as to why they were invented. We have novels, TV series, and in two cases the military use of "Redland" vs. "Blueland", except at the county level.

Given your past 3RR blanking of the whole article here, last time you tried to delete it [14][15][16] you should avoid edit-warring deletions again. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI As you have persisted in attacking other editors, rather than discussing the AfD, the inevitable AfD filing:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hijiri88 and PAs at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I'm not going to respond to this repeated attempt to make this personal, except to acknowledge that it exists.

(2) That's ... not even the dictionary definition of fictional. If that is your criterion for inclusion, then the redirect should be restored or the article deleted, and everyone agreeing with you on this should be ashamed of themselves for such a blatant violation of our content policies.

(3) Yeah, I'm the one who's personalizing this... That's the ticket...

(4) Personalizing and overreacting. That's cool, I guess. You wanna focus on content?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect- per Clarityfiend. The current content is indiscriminate fancruft and since there is virtually no sourced content there is nothing that can be merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 10:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / restore redirect. While I sympathise with AD's arguments, the sheer lack of third-party, independent sources for most of these makes this little more than an indscriminate list of possibles. While some of these locations might be article-worthy (e.g.), most of the others are of a pretty much use-once-and-discard variety. ——SN 54129 12:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in the light of the pre-existing, recent consensus to keep this article, it should not have been redirected without discussion and Andy was correct to restore the article. However, now that we are here, I'm afraid I don't see much that's worth keeping. This does not appear to be a notable topic. The fact that the vast majority of the listed counties are not independently notable does not help me to see why we need a list here. It's certainly not worth a drawn-out fight between established editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons we've twice before discussed and the result was Keep both times. Perfectly reasonable and useful list. WP:Preserve WP:Not paper WP:Before 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our longstanding WP:LISTN guideline. Also Dream Focus points to the many blue links in the article which also supports the navigation aspect of LISTN. Previous AfDs on this list have resulted in keep both in 2007 and 2018, making this nomination somewhat vexatious. Lightburst (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or even outright Delete. About the laziest, worthless, unsourced collection of cruft imaginable. That a few of the entries have enough level of detail to (possibly) justify standalone articles doesn't justify this list. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Dingley, Dream Focus, and Andrew and the second AFD discussion that occurred fairly recently. — Hunter Kahn 04:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Delete/Redirect arguments above are reasonable. However, it has been upheld fairly recently (in July 2018 — around the same time as the similar List of fictional towns and villages) without the need for trimming. In its current state, it is well-defined (see County), has enough significant and accurately evaluated entries, contains no original research, and is not wholly indiscriminate, unlike those that got deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep The list is not unsourced (4 sources), and several of these counties have articles in their own right. Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 5 8 11 sources. WP:Preserve. No compliance with WP:Before Fictional locations is an overweaning category, and is not as well sourced as this article. Fictional cities, villages and counties are not fungible goods. This article and its list of fictional counties is useful to our readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources supporting notability of the grouping (as required by WP:LISTN). Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Keep - great lead/introduction, useful list, enough sources to show notability. Bearian (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the content is of general interest, and most of the entries are sourced by references to the works of fiction in which they appear. ---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge prose to Lists of fictional locations because per WP:NOTESAL, this topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This is a critical foundation to make the topic remain in perpetuity. I have tried to research for such sources but have essentially found Faulkner's county, and to a lesser extent, Hardy's. The lead section should be merged to the aforementioned article (and more section headings and summary sections created for the other categories). I oppose deletion because if sources discussing this as a group or set do appear at some point, per WP:NOTESAL, those in these groups and sets can be complemented with individual items that have been noted in secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per above comments and nom. It doesn't meet LISTN, and it's indiscriminate cruft violating NOT. Also just because it was kept at AFDs two and ten years ago doesn't mean there is anything wrong with renominating, contrary to the arguments made by ARS block voters. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling and Argumentum ad hominem. I won't descend to your level, or resort to that. Your record at AFD discussions truly Res ipsa loquitur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. The topic of the list doesn't have sufficient notability.Scribolt (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle engineering[edit]

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

This article represents WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no sub-discipline with this name mentioned in mechanical engineering, as would be expected from what is claimed in the lead paragraph, nor is it a term of art found in a literature search, except as a course of study in Chinese universities (where the term appears to be a literal translation into English for what is known as automotive engineering). None of the references cited use the term, either. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Right now this appears to be a list of other disciplines that do have their own articles, and (admittedly cursory) searches on the subject mostly return information about automotive engineering. I'd change my mind if someone proposed a more useful vision for this article, but right now I'm not seeing one myself. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:V. The only source that even mentions this title is very brief. None of the other sources, as far as I can see, even describes what you can do with vehicle engineering. Sub-fields of a career are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Davis (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

yet another paid for piece sourced to completely deceptive "news" sites. not a single reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to proactively stop the use of Wikipedia as a Who's who type vanity publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant PR piece based on the extensive use of fake sources used. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Nicks[edit]

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

non notable person, 0 reliable sources and those that are in the article are completely fake black hat SEO "news" outlets. Praxidicae (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks the quality reliable sources that we base articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Shellwood and Johnpacklambert, no WP:RS sources. This article is the only article that uses the four sources cited in the article. I can perhaps understand if one of the sources was new to Wikipedia, but the odds of all four being new to Wikipedia and reliable is very small. Below are the search terms I used:

"Value News"

"Disrupt Magazine & Podcast"

"America Daily Post"

"Business Deccan"

The article was created via WP:PAID, see Talk:Jake Nicks, it would be helpful if User talk:VivekY1 would declare their Wikipedia:COIPAYDISCLOSE on their talk page. Cxbrx (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eni Balogun[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sources cited in the article are not enough to establish her as a notable figure. The subject holds executive roles in two non-notable organizations. The beautician award she was a recipient of is not notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the subject of the article being discussed in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I only see a single independent source, which is a Nigerian periodical online, The Nation, not the American magazine of the same name. Bearian (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo 18 world records[edit]

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

The entire thing is written like an advertisement, and the article likely isn't notable anyway. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SPAM. This is not written like a fan would, and based on what I see, it looks and smells like spam. It was created by by an SPA and heaving edited by other SPAs. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any significant, reliable, independent coverage from sources, that specifically address these records as a group (the current title is poor both for searches and just in general, but even modified searches come up dry). No need to redirect because the title is unlikely to be searched for. No existing content worth merging to the main article. Some could plausibly go to an appropriate list somewhere, however even in that case the need to condense and rewrite would likely be such that it would end up being a do-over anyway. Spectrum ((UV)) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waldemar Heckel[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and cannot find any notable secondary source IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of his books are highly cited, which is probably enough for WP:NPROF C1. And there are several reviews of his books now in the article, which looks like a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR by way of having multiple books with multiple reviews apiece, well over the minimum we look for with humanities scholars. And I think there's a good WP:PROF#C1 argument to be made, as Russ Woodroofe suggests. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many published reviews of many books make for a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The simplest Google Scholar check shows strong evidence of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Though his works are not all that numerous, it is clear that he must be an expert on Alexander the Great. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Creator was a crosswiki sockmaster. Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moghaddam Mehdi[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The article is filled with primary sources. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Meets WP:GNG. Hi I searched this person is famous for these links. 1. IMDb 2. Discogs 3. Musicbrianz 4. Sourehcinema Lokal viyt (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing where Cbl62 has opined on this article. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks coverage in reliable independant sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent amount of coverage about the subject herself including. 1.2.3.4.5.Amir.we1 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- they are primary sources and not independent of him. I don't think any of the article's sources comes close to the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that we need to establish Moghaddam Mehdi's notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing for this article falls well short of what is needed to pass WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete in violation of TOU by an xwiki spammer/hoaxer. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Korostenskij[edit]

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

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Heavy promotional tone and strong indication of COI editing. Renata (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost certainly a promotional article and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, I must stress that we are a Charity, not a free resume service for business people, massage therapists, and film directors. In 2006, this horrific mess could have been forgiven, but in 2020, everybody knows what we are and this is not an article. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Guerrand-Hermès[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability requirements, is a copy of Draft:Eva Guerrand-Hermès which has been rejected for this reason. Greyjoy^talk 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 09:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find sufficient coverage online to show how she meets WP:BIO. Capewearer (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. 2 small mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, written by COI accounts also adding her name to other articles. WP:NOTINHERITED. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Ferris[edit]

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

Dramatically undersourced, largely autobiographical. Guy (help!) 09:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and neutralize. I fully agree with both of Guy's arguments. The article is mostly unsourced and has been significantly edited by a user that claims to be the subject himself. I moved it myself to draft space for improvement but it was moved back after Ferris1182 pointed out that his article had been in Wikipedia for more that 10 years (see here). I considered an AfD nomination myself, but a WP:BEFORE search revealed sufficient coverage by multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Most contents of the article need to be trimmed but the subject does seem to meet our notability guidelines. I have added citation notices and if it is not improved in a few days, I will add some references to source some key facts and remove all the remaining unsourced content. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, thank you for doing that. Caro7200 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no trouble finding sources. One of note is his Donovan album cover is included in the UK National Portrait Gallery, with Ferris listed as the author. There is clearly a lot more sourcing out there. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion is not cleanup, but yes, the article can be trimmed until each of the lines can be vetted. A lot of it will end up being sourced by his interviews, but there are articles such as NME that should keep it around. That he did the cover art for some of the most notable albums in music history establishes notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Experienced#Album cover has a detailed paragraph with citations concerning Ferris. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needed improvement not deletion, and it has been considerably improved since it was nominated. Without question, the artist meets GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BonBros Records[edit]

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

No evidence of notability could be found. Sources are just announcements without even mentioning the name of the label and taken from a press release (both have the sentences "composed by Ravneet Singh and penned by Raahi. The music and background score is handled by Jus Keys, and it will be digitally powered by Bull18 Network."). No further indepth sources about the label seem to exist. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a sliver of results appear searching for "Bon Bros Records" (vs "BonBros"), but there's no non-trivial secondary coverage that I can find. — Bilorv (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and I can't find any independent sources, using multiple methods, other than the press releases found in the article already. Bilorv evidently is better at it than I am. This may become a notable label, but it isn't yet. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Miller[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though Miller's notability is doubtful, the book about her, The Girl Who Spoke With Pictures, has received several reviews, at least one in an academic journal, so an article about the book seems possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Reviews in Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders and Foreword Reviews indicate that The Girl Who Spoke With Pictures meets WP:NBOOK#1 and the content in this article is plausibly useful in writing The Girl Who Spoke With Pictures. A move to that page, and refocusing on the book, would be good. My !vote is "weak" because I'm not fully convinced of Foreword Reviews's reliability. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The Girl Who Spoke With Pictures" is a book by her mother, so I have to assume inherent bias. Also, I am not finding any news articles related to Kim Miller, so I would think despite her accomplishments, her notability is very thin. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources which would make her biography notable. If others are not giving importance to her biography then why we should? Tessaracter (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potential notability is inherited from the book The Girl Who Spoke With Pictures. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Handloom and Handicraft Development Council[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG Hemant Dabral^Talk 21:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple google check provides numerous references and sources. The nominator should have googled and helped expand the article Afterall the wikipedia project is collaborative in nature .Shyamsunder (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why this should be deleted when it can be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvatsal61 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it fails WP:N. – Hemant Dabral^Talk 15:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then see [17][18], subject is notable. Bvatsal61 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what I said above. Bvatsal61 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Delete WP:NORG controls here. We need significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. I agree that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, I also note the question is one of what sources exist, not which ones are found in the article. However of the references provided [19][20] do not satisfy the requirement for WP:ORGDEPTH. The two additional references in google news beyond those provided above, also have this issue. The broader google search finds only a small amount of additional coverage of a handful of marketing deals. In sum English language searches do not uncover anything that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH. At a deeper level, content must be neutral and verifiable, the only neutral and verifiable things that can be said are that this organization exists and has struck a few deals, but Wikipedia is not a directory. Would be willing to strike and reconsider if non-English sources show that WP:NORG is in fact met. Spectrum ((UV)) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't matter whether the article can be improved if it lacks evidence of basic notability. A search yields no in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources. Does not meet threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search suggests sufficient coverage of related initiatives to establish basic notability and verifiability for a government agency. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Government of Uttarakhand - not seeing the significant, in-depth coverage here. Neutrality^talk 15:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks depth of coverage, as per Glendoremus. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The original nomination's reasoning was contrary to WP:NONENG and it remains unclear whether Indonesian sources that meet GNG exist, despite requests of editors for a review of Indonesian sources. The only other !vote - that argues to delete the argue - only addresses NACTOR, not GNG. Even if the subject fails NACTOR, it remains unclear if the subject passes GNG. Closing without prejudice against speedy renomination with a review of the Indonesian sources. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangga Nattra[edit]

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

May not meet WP:GNG. No English sources. Dede2008 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dede2008 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English sources are not needed. I see that you are a native speaker of Indonesian, so what do you make of the sources in that language? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that English language sources are not mandatory to demonstrate notability. For a bit more information, see WP:NONENG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment pinging @Dede2008: It would also be useful to have some voices from Category:Indonesian Wikipedians or WP:ID. userdude 07:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mushtaq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think that this person is notable enough. She is the director of a school chain but notability is not inherited. Apart from a couple of press release style interviews there is nothing that makes her notable in any RS. The keep! argument that she has won Tamgha e Imtiaz is not valid as awards like this are awarded to a couple of hundred people each year. It is a simple state award for services. Without her position as director there is no mention of her independantly. She is mentioned as an educationalist but there is not a single paper in google scholar that she has authored. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She runs a for-profit university college. People have started going to close to interpreting all institutions of higher education as significant enough to make their heads notable. That was not the intention of the academic notability guidelines, and would be unworkable in the long run.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm tempted to !vote delete as is International Women's day and to oppose the Gender bias on Wikipedia initiative but I'm a bloke and would get an ear-bashing for that. The nom. suggests the true notability lies with Roots School System but we like to jump on that because any attempt to create it is alleged to be by a paid editor. I note related articles that could have been considered for a merge prior to nomination are Roots International Schools, Faisal Mushtaq, ~~Roots Millennium Schools~~, Roots Ivy International University. Actually Riffat Mushtaq may be more notable for founding the Roots School System though it may be Khadija who has brought it to cover higher levels. Noting also [21], [22] & [23] for background and significance, others may note Roots School System may be "costly" and aimed at the more"elite". Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After noting the above links and on review Roots Millennium Schools is beginning to look like a separate organisation to Roots School System. So it may be a tricky working whats whats and I've just queried a redlink in Roots Ivy International University to Roots Education System that seems to link to Roots Millennium Schools by off-wiki sources. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very weak keep:(Moved from Very weak keep - see comment below Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)) (or if not kept the redirect with history or merge to Roots Ivy International University (preferred) or Roots School System). Khadija Mushtaq appears to have influenced the development of the higher qualification classes of the Roots School System and establishment of the affiliate degree programme so probably just has sufficient for a keep and we are being encourage to achieve gender equality on articles but this one is tight. A minimum of a redirect with history, possibilities and printworthy seems reasonable.21:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she might meet WP:ACADEMIC#6 as founder and chancellor of Roots Ivy International University. TJMSmith (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. I do not consider the coverage listed by Djm-leighpark sufficient to meet WP:BIO and could not find additional significant coverage. Roots Ivy International University is not major enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC#6. For WP:ACADEMIC#2, the Yale Educator Award is given to dozens of recipients each year [24] and I could not find information on the Best Councillor Award from MIT. Neither appear to be notable enough for WP:ACADEMIC#2. userdude 06:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... Did I actually list coverage above? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On review and looking at her recognition at [25] and she was in 2010 the youngest educationalist to receive the Tamgha-e-Imtiaz Pakistan national award [26]. I have therefore moved to keep above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I agree with Djm-leighpark and TJMSmith here, the award Tamgha-i-Imtiaz (Medal of Distinction) has great value and it was awarded to only 5 select few distinguished professors in 2011 including Khadija Mushtaq out of a total population of over 180 million people in Pakistan. This fact is verifiable on the list of awards shown on the major newspaper reference I added today for this award. Please let's not confuse this award with the 8 other military and civil awards that the President confers each year on Independence Day. We all know this is commonly done and is the norm all over the world. Besides this, Khadija Mushtaq was awarded two international awards – 'Yale Educator Award' in 2009 and the 'Best Councillor Award' by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2010. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Will add more and try to improve soon. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. She is a recipient of the Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. TJMSmith (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cleaned up the article and fixed the references where needed. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Djm-leighpark and Ngrewal1 - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 23:22, 1 April 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 as WP:PTM and impediment to search results. No analogous entry in the list Tristis now redirects to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acuminatus[edit]

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

This is a dab page that lists some of the species whose systematic name has acuminatus as a species epithet. Such a list has no encyclopedic relevance, and it serves no disambiguation purpose as none of the species is referred to using just the epithet. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) for an extended discussion of a similar case. – Uanfala (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful in my opinion to have such a list. Can be expanded. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Quoting Peter coxhead from the AfD linked above: It's as if we said that because there are organisms called "greenfinch", "green woodpecker", "green crayfish" and "green spider flower", we should have an article at "Green" that disambiguated them. Not a realistic search term, no functional relationship between species with this name, no encyclopedic use of this list. As with Tristis, redirecting this to an entry at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names should do fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per my earlier view and the point made by Elmidae: not an encyclopedic term, WP:NOTDICT. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dab pages listing scientific names are definitely useful for readers. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment. I'd have thought redirecting to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names would be obviously off the table: that list – which is already pretty big, and probably bigger than it needs to be – does not contain an entry for acuminatus, or any of the large number of similar shape-based epithets like acicularis or attenuatus. – Uanfala (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the objection to adding a new entry? If nothing else, the number of entries at Acuminatus shows that it's a common species name. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a relatively common species epithet, but so are acicularis, attenuatus, and many more. Generally, I don't like the idea of adding a random entry into a monstrous list just so some dab page could be redirected instead of deleted, though if the people who look after that list are happy to integrate this and similar entries, then I won't get in the way. But even then, just look from the point of view of a reader. If this page is deleted, then anyone who searches for this term will see the search results (where all the articles with this as a species epithet are at the top of the list), and a prominent link pointing to the wiktionary entry, which has relevant information about the Latin word. If on the other hand this page is not deleted but kept as a redirect, then that reader will be cut off from the search results and just sent to a list item that provides a local copy of a dictionary definition. Which one is better? – Uanfala (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As someone who encounters taxonomic names regularly, I think it's useful to have a freestanding list of different organisms that share a specific name. A reader might well be familiar enough with a species to know the name, but hazy about the genus it belongs to—and as the list demonstrates, many genera can share the same descriptive name among their species. A Wiktionary entry will only tell you what the specific name means, unless you already know the generic name—so if you've forgotten it, you may as well not bother looking. You won't find it. This is a disambiguation page by another name, and would benefit from more information—for instance, grouping by taxonomic hierarchy, with common names and descriptions sufficient to help readers sort out what each entry refers to. I can't see any benefit to deleting it.

With respect to Elmidae's point, this isn't like listing "organisms with 'green' in the name". This is like listing "organisms with 'finch' in the name". Sure, most of them will be birds, unless there are some "finch plants"—and readers could easily be directed to a list of notable people named "Finch" with a hatnote. But different kinds of birds are called finches, not all of them closely related, and some of them have multiple names—so an article listing different "finch" names and identifying which each refers to would be useful to readers. This article lists mostly—perhaps entirely—plants, and unless you're a botanist, and probably a very good one, you won't be familiar with all of them, or be able to distinguish between them all based solely on their generic names. So I'd say it serves a very useful purpose, and would be much more useful if expanded along the lines that I suggested. P Aculeius (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The finches are not analogous at all: any one of the many different species involved can be called a "finch", whereas none of the species whose systematic name has "acuminatus" in it are normally called just that. "Acuminatus" here functions exactly like "Green" in the example quoted by Elmidae. Still, could it be that some reader might only remember that the species they're looking for has a name ending in "acuminatus"? Sure! But that's precisely what the search engine is there for. Having a page that blocks the search results and currently only lists half of the relevant species is worse than nothing. – Uanfala (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite like the word "finch" in the sense that there are a limited number of things that could belong in this list, and all or nearly all of them belong to a particular category: taxonomic nomenclature. Lots of things can be acuminate, just as they can be green. But only a limited range of things is so named. It's not practical or useful to list everything that's called green in a single article; but it is practical and useful to list organisms formally named acuminatus. But I think the more important point is that the page doesn't so much "block search results" as it acts as a page that can collect relevant results in one place, rather than the user hoping to find all of the relevant search results in a linear fashion, and perhaps having to search—if, as you say, this article only lists half of the relevant species—fifty-eight separate articles (and that's assuming that they just happen to be the first fifty-eight results in a search) spread across six or ten pages of search results, and then wondering if still more searching is needed. If, as you say, this article is half the size it needs to be to include the relevant topics, then the solution is to find the others and add them to it, not to delete it. And obviously it would be more useful if the entries provided more information than "a species of tree", "a species of beetle". But again, there's a straightforward way of doing that: adding the relevant information—not deleting the page. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this Disambig page meets our requirements for WP:D Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It fulfils the Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be part of WP:D. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page does not serve to usefully disambiguate anything. Instead, it sends readers searching for a binomial name containing the specific epithet 'acuminatus' up a blind alley; they would, as has been suggested above, be better served by simply seeing these more numerous search results to appreciate the magnitude of their task. I fully agree, that 'acuminatus' is equivalent to looking up 'green' (see viridis) - or simply looking up the name 'John' to find the person you want. It is nothing whatsoever like looking up 'finch', which is mostly a discrete group worthy of separating. A random, unsorted list of a few species names which happen to be so named with that specific epithet because they have some acuminate (i.e. pointed) feature to them seems to serve no encyclopaedic purpose. Here are 278 plant species and subpecies with 'acuminatus' in them from the IPNI database, alone. That's a lot of 'Johns'. I would take a different view were we discussing a DAB page for a genus name, and not a species name, where there is a function served by listing similar genera (e.g. Prunella), but certainly not every vulgaris. A redirect to 'acuminate' would not serve a useful purpose, as it would actually prevent the broader Wikipedia search results being returned. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 06:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the arguments by Obsidian Soul here. userdude 06:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Moyes: this page actively inhibits Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Partial title match explicitly rules out all the entries herein from dab pages. Or in the age of Trump, is black the new white? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Potentially GNG-satisfying sources presented but no real attempt to discuss despite relisting. Not seeing clear consensus to delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nakin Wisetchat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In-depth third-party coverage probably satisfies GNG.[27][28] --Paul_012 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further time needed to evaluate potentially GNG-satisfying sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. Mightytotems (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good find User:Paul 012, those sources look GNG-good to me. And here's a recent report that Army United F.C. fans voted him player of the year in 2019; that report doesn't meet GNG but the other two certainly do! @GiantSnowman:. I'll add to the article. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking more in-depth analysis of the sources found by Paul_012.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 05:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinex[edit]

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

Non-notable company, tagged for three years for lack of notability. All of the sources are either to the companies web site or press releases, or simple unselective directories, such as its listing with the UK Financial Conduct Authority. I can find no significant coverage myself.

The current version reflects a recent revert I made after it was turned into promotional copy by apparent COI editor DarwinexLabs, but editors may want to review that unreverted copy to determine whether they believe it does pass muster (I don't want my revert to be the basis of deletion). TJRC (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wait - I can try to improve the article as I go along, you can decide to delete if after a while if it's still not worthwhile keeping it here. Basically, I am trying to avoid killing a project just because it's been slow lately, we can give it a little bit breathing space : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I am not proposing that the article be deleted because editing on it has been slow. I am proposing that it be deleted because there is nothing notable about this company that merits its inclusion in Wikipedia under the project's notability guidelines and in particular those for corporations. Slow editing would not be a proper basis for deletion. In fact, if the corporation were in fact notable, but the state of the article didn't reflect that, that, too, would be an invalid basis for deletion. It's not about the condition of the article; if that were the case, the solution is to bring the article into shape, not to delete it. It's about the lack of notability of the subject of the article, which cannot be corrected by any amount of editing. TJRC (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a small company, I can try to find out notable developments, you can decide to delete if after a while it's still not notable. Basically, I am trying to avoid killing a small company just because it's been less notable lately, we can give it a little bit breathing space : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "little bit of breathing space" was the two years it went without people fixing the notability issues. I think that's long enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's been a long time, but hey, i came across it and i am now trying to do something about it, how about we go a bit longer for our friends at Darwinex : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Apologies for the apparent COI TJRC.. we were not at all aware that's what we'd end up doing! We were merely trying to correct information on this Wikipedia page since it was likely written by someone outside the organization without our knowledge nor consent, and was citing incorrect / out-of-date information. We are a FinTech Startup working hard every day to make the financial industry a more meritocratic and better place, empowering talented traders to compete with institutions on a level playing field. We have nothing but good intentions in any effort we make towards that goal. If you could kindly advise how we can correct this COI and not disappear from Wikipedia entirely, we'd be eternally grateful. Thank you for your consideration. -- DarwinexLabs (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The COI is not the basis of my putting it up for deletion; it is the lack of notability of the company. With respect to your COI, you should probably simply refrain from editing the article, and instead suggest edits on the talk page. Please see and follow WP:COI, where you have been directed on your talk page. TJRC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard delete As it currently is, the company seems like a run of the mill startup that is not notable for most of the reasons start ups aren't (P.S. Changed vote based on more research that makes me think this isn't worth a soft delete). --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a soft keep, i have no idea if it'll be notable in future, but if we delete their wiki page, then the likelihood of their ideas working out goes down, and that's why i am spending this much time on them, i do think that their ideas are very noteworthy, you can see from my contribution history that i have subject matter expertise in this area : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is notable then the page should not be deleted, but there is pretty much one path to demonstrating that: edit the page to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, so that it includes multiple independent reliable sources that give this company significant coverage. Having a Wikipedia page in the hopes that it will increase coverage of a subject to then make that subject notable doesn't quite make sense, because to have a page in the first place the subject already needs to be notable. It also gets pretty close to using Wikipedia as a way to advertise a company, which isn't permitted (see WP:NOTADVERTISING). There's also not much room for personal authority in discussions on whether or not something is notable. A good explanation is in rule 8 of WP:10SIMPLERULES. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what i was planning to do, edit the page to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, so that it includes multiple independent reliable sources that give this company significant coverage. Having a Wikipedia page allowed me to learn about the ideas the company is using and this would now feed back on me spending time on something notable. Wiki is full of pages and subjects which i find pretty trivial and not notable at all. But I don't go around raising discussions for their deletion. I assume good faith on all those who are closer to the subject to make that judgement call --LSVTArmy (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely is not an advertisement, but you have to understand power of wiki, people are getting their corona virus news from Wiki, so we all here at Wiki have some responsibility that we encourage great ideas even though they might have yet to receive some New York Times reporter's endorsement. There absolutely is scope for expertise on whether or not something is notable. I would not wade myself amongst corona virus article intricacy discussions, leave alone opining on deleting one of their pages. But, all the people opining here seem to be non-Finance, non-Investments, Non-Brokerage background trying to reach a conclusion based on their understanding only from the surface --LSVTArmy (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia isn't a news source. The only reason it has an article is because it's notable, but that's different then "newsyness." While lots of things might have New York times articles, they don't have Wikipedia articles because that's not the metric. That said, appeal to authority arguments are always extremely weak. Especially on an anonymous platform where you don't know who is or is involved in what. For all you know you any of us might have some experience in finance. It doesn't matter though since there is no expertise criteria for who can participate in something. Most of the time it would lead to "I'm the authority so I should get my way because X" bickering anyway if there was. So, we are not better not having it. Therefore, your free to wade into whatever Coronovirus discussions you want to. Just as anyone else is free to have an opinion on this article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-phrase, Wiki is most def source of information. You probably don't know my expertise, but you know your expertise. Likewise, I wouldn't wade into areas like US Counties, because then i'll be taking up a lot of your time over my half baked arguments : ) I am well aware of the blindspots for Wiki Contributors and so I have absolutely no hope for getting my way just because I want it, all i can hope is some patience with the potential I can very well see here : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LSVTArmy, it sounds like your argument boils down to, although this company is not currently notable, it is doing some interesting things and ought to get coverage that would make it notable; therefore we should treat it as notable. But that's not a valid argument. Wikipedia includes articles people and things that are notable, not people and things that we believe should be notable. (And, conversely, we have articles on people and things that arguably should not be notable, yet are notable nonetheless. Kardashians is too easy a target, so let me instead go to Richard Nanes for an example.) TJRC (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-phrase, this company is maybe notable, it definitely is trying to solve an obvious problem, i only found out about it because it's Wiki page was still up and so i learnt about it from there, i would assume some good faith here and give it little bit more time, and then you can do another round of afd, same with Richard, we can do another round of afd for him in future, may he rest in peace till then : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not implying bad faith on the part of you or any other editor. I'm pointing out why your approach is flawed. TJRC (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The world is a flawed place and I would like us to make it a better place, for u and me : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~: The argument for notability among English-language sources looks very weak. I can only find one in-depth English language article on this company, and some scattered entries among sketchier sources, so on the basis of English sources I would easily vote delete. However, including Spanish-language sources (as permitted under WP:GNG point 3), a superficial inspection to a non-Spanish speaker makes the picture suddenly completely bewildering. They get in-depth coverage time and time again from one source: There is one particular radio station that appears to be obsessed with this company, doing a 40 minute radio segment, a 30 minute radio segment, a 20 minute radio segment, a 35 minute radio segment, another 35 minute radio segment ... all just about this company. I can pretty much understand the literal meanings because I speak related languages, but I simply lack the cultural context to understand what is going on here. Is this a really amazing WP:RS rescue by this one radio station that happens to be the only independent reliable source that really thinks this company is worth covering in extreme detail? Is this probably paid coverage? Something in between? I would like to see comments from someone who understands how to interpret this. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: switched to Delete per UserDude - Astrophobe (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the argument for notability is currently weak, they have been in existence since 2012 and not been able to achieve exponential growth which the company needs in order to maintain notability and not start to fade into oblivion. In fact, I am a hard core Finance guy and have accounts with all the major brokers and I hadn't heard of this broker myself till 2 days ago. So, yeah, they are not notable at all. But they are trying to solve the problem which i faced with all other brokers who i already have an account with. This caught my attention and now I am wasting all this time trying to help with their mission. But hey, like that Spanish Radio Station, my efforts might be in vain, but this is no different from what Lincoln faced. There was tremendous opposition to giving black people their rights. Hey, I am that black person, you give me some rights here and in hundred years, I'll produce a Mozart for you, just like the black people's Mozart, u like Michael Jackson don't u : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish radio coverage doesn't ultimately matter because an FM radio jockey is no more authoritative then a blogger IMO. That said, it would be interesting to know what their thing with it is. My guess is some kind of pay to play thing or the radio host has investments in the company and is preaching about it to make his stocks go up. Quite a lot blogs and other sources of financial "news" do the same thing. Even ones that might otherwise seem legitimate. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have barely done any editing related to companies so I'm happy to defer on this, but the reason that it really stuck out to me is that it reminded me of point 12 of WP:SINGER. There are situations in biographies of people where (if Capital Radio is what it looks like, a nationwide radio station) this sort of coverage would qualify the page for notability, but of course that's a different guideline and I don't really know what to make of this type of coverage in this case. Hence just commenting to make sure it's not totally overlooked. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: @LSVTArmy: please stop editing my comments, even if the edit seems minor. It isn't done, especially after I've already objected. Please read WP:TPO. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I was wondering where that * disappeared, i had to do it twice, haha, now i know you took it away, of course i know TPO, but god there are so many comments here, it's hard to keep track, i'll leave yours alone ; ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's so many comments because you flooded the AfD with irrelevant, off topic crap. Everyone knew what your opinion about it was after your first comment. The rest has been completely pointless noise. You keep going off about how we should cancel the AfD so you can improve the article, you could have done that a couple of times over by now if the company was actually notable instead of wasting your time with the useless commenting. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more coverage that's brought up the better. Even if it might not qualify. I've tried argue a couple of times that a company's article should be kept based on the notability guidelines for events, but no one went for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that radio jockey has gone to this length tells me that he is able to see the same purpose and potential that i am able to see so clearly. Of course his starting point was the fellow countrymen who founded this vision in a foreign country, just like my starting point from their competitors like eToro. It's definitely not money, I can guarantee you this, people who are this passionate are driven from the object itself, not the resulting financial pressure, absolutely not. To mitigate any potential conflict of interest, you are more than welcome to revert any changes i might make to the page, if it's not obvious to the reader, it has no place on Wiki : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than worrying about whether Capital Radio Jockey coverage is notable or not, how about you and I see if these ideas themselves are worthy of taking a note, much like ideas of Hans P. Eugster, somebody clearly felt that they were noteworthy and made a wiki page for it, maybe his next door colleague was more noteworthy at the time, but those ideas couldn't stand the test of time and thus that poor fellow has got no wiki page : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe that this needs to be said: absolutely do not use other peoples COI disclosures to talk about their families in article for deletion discussions. Now I will disengage because there is nothing left to do here. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because all of us have blindspots, we find it hard to appreciate of what we are unable to see, that's the reason I was trying to talk about subjects that you might find it easy to understand and appreciate, now i don't know you personally, so i have no idea of what you are able to understand, so i picked the first subject on your home page i could myself relate to, grandfather, we all have them and we all understand that topic and so i can now talk about something we both could understand : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll of course try to get more coverage, I might even pass on references of this fantastic attempt to the reporters myself. But that would take time, so patience is all i am asking for. If after some time, you are still not seeing enough notability, you are more than welcome to raise another round of afd : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comments from LSVTArmy, a blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurarjun/Archive for details. — Newslinger talk 05:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking more comments on the Spanish-language sources found by Astrophobe.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 05:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. I found this coverage of Darwinex, but it still fails WP:NCORP. I find the WP:CRYSTAL-like arguments of LSVTArmy untenable. userdude 05:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Spanish-language sources: Four of the five sourced provided by Astrophobe largely consist of Juan Colón, CEO of Darwinex, speaking about the company. Thus they fail the "independence" clause of being a reliable source. This leaves [29], which consists of Eriz Zárate, CEO of Zárate-Mateo Algorithmic Systems, speaking about his own company, Darwinex, and a partnership (or merger) between the two companies. This is also of questionable independence, but even assuming it is independent, I do not believe this is sufficient coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Also, the Wikidata page (Q66114095) says it was founded in 2013, suggesting it leans towards the radio jockey end of the spectrum. userdude 05:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC); edited 05:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, really good catches. So just one person doing a shocking number of interviews with the CEO for reasons I won't speculate about. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kotey Place, Wyoming[edit]

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

The oldest aerial I could find does show the Kotey place as a fenced-off rectangle, but it's gone in the next, and it sure as heck isn't there now. BUt from the name, you could already guess that it was just a ranch. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a ranch, no newspapers.com results. Reywas92^Talk 20:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A ranch would need to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our requirements for WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holdup Hollow, Wyoming[edit]

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

A "locale" according to GNIS, but a favorite holdup spot on the Bozeman Trail according to the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. No sign of a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one-liner from Mr. "I am the guy who has crawled through wires, hornet nests, pepper sprayed wild animals, killed snakes, crawled in abandoned facilities and churches and houses, hacked through briars and thorns,dodged the fury of meth addicts, and driven hundreds of miles just to say, I was there." If "it is my hope to document these places to the best of my ability." then perhaps this would be documented with something beyond the GNIS to support the claim of being a community. Brief mention of it on page 17 here. Reywas92^Talk 06:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing Rock, Wyoming[edit]

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

This appears and disappears from the topos, but never shows up in the "populated place" Roman font. Recent topos don't show it. According to GNIS, it's a locale, and all I see on the aerials are some big rocks; I cannot verify whether any of them bounces. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Let's see some evidence this is a notable community before more crap is mass-produced from the GNIS. Not finding any yet, nothing in newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 05:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:GEOLAND. Even GNIS calls this place a "locale," a place of human activity, not a populated place, a place with permanent residential buildings. My independent searches found nothing. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Mans Corner, Wyoming[edit]

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

WHy this even has a name on a map is a puzzle, because the location given is the top of a butte in the middle of nowhere, with nothing around it except some dirt bike trails and an earthen dam a bit to the southwest. It shows up on a 1958 topo map with the font used for a natural feature, but it's not on the previous edition, and there's nothing obvious that it's supposed to be associated with. Searching brings back little, and a lot of that is false hits with other "deadmans Corner"s in other states. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's see some evidence this is a notable community before more crap is mass-produced from the GNIS. Not finding any yet, nothing in newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 05:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a notable populated place here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 – bradv🍁 05:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj Singh (dancer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and fails to comply with WP:NPOV. The content has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:BLP1E. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant see anything here to warrant a standalone page on Wikipedia the subject in question fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 03:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2020[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Duplicate of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2020s and that follows convention of the previous decades. Leave redirect to that article, and WP:SALT as it was recreated after last AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I just noticed that List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2019 exists and upon deeper investigation, there are two classes of articles: those for the year and those for the decade. Will comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, which is where this was raised. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT Lightburst (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hawkesbury Upton. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 12:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkesbury Upton Literary Festival[edit]

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

A non notable local festival with only minor local coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hawkesbury Upton. Doesn't seem to meet WP:EVENT, but there's a strong case for WP:PRESERVE in a case such as this where the topic has clear encyclopaedic value and there's an obvious target to merge to. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Could not find significant reliable source coverage. userdude 04:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Already deleted. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 12:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netdol[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidlines for companies (no coverage from reliable third-party sources). Yaxollum (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Yaxollum (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Yaxollum (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. Non-notable game developer. For coverage, I could only find press releases from the company and minor Japanese-langauge coverage from 4Gamer.net. userdude 04:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete. Very little point in letting this run. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19[edit]

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

List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 was deleted: this is essentially a subset of that set that was not considered to meet WP:BLP, WP:LISTN and, most importantly, WP:IINFO. That a player is unwell (especially as at present at a time when his team has no fixtures) for a few days, it is of no significance whatsoever, and is not a defining characteristic. We may as well have List of cross country skiers who have had impacted wisdom teeth. Kevin McE (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been crosslinked from this deletion review. Depending on the outcome of that discussion, it's possible that a thoughtful sysop might be able to extrapolate enough to close this early.—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list's existence is fundamentally a failure of common sense as well as WP:LISTN. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is a WP:BLP violation. This is a more focussed list split from List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 which was deleted and is now the subject of a deletion review. This smacks of WP:CONTENTFORKING Lightburst (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP, it seems sketchy to call out particular living people for having a disease. ~~I agree with Lightburst, this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to preserve some content from the deleted page List of people with coronavirus disease 2019.~~ epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, though. Independently created by an established but still relatively new user who's clearly in good faith. I can see why people make these, I just don't agree with them.—S Marshall T/C 03:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I admit I was wrong about this being a content fork. However, I feel this is still against BLP. epicgenius (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing We are parsing words. It is indeed a WP:SPINOFF. Original created 3-9 this one created 3-19. Shall we have more spinoffs from the deleted article? Professors diagnosed with COVID-19, World leaders diagnosed with COVID-19, Actors diagnosed with COVID-19 etc. In any event this is a BLP violation and in America it is also a HIPAA violation. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to "health care clearinghouses, employer-sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions", which, although WP:NOT fails to specify, I think we can safely say Wikipedia is not. 2601:143:8101:E50:446C:D483:8D6C:B79A (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so wrong, in so many ways. If it stays, I'm creating List of association football players diagnosed with Gonorrhea. Nfitz (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What next, List of hockey players missing teeth? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Even if the DRV of the other page is overturned, this is not at all acceptable: excessive cross-categorization. Reywas92^Talk 07:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO, being diagnosed with COVID-19 is not nearly significant enough to the subject to warrant such a cross-categorisation. I doubt we'd even bother mentioning it in the subject's article in most cases, unless they died from it. A list of people with a disease isn't necessarily a problem, and List of HIV-positive people is a featured list, but that disease is life changing and COVID-19 isn't. Hut 8.5 07:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably a lone voice here, but I'd wait for the outcome of the DRV. If the main list is restored, then I see no reason why sub-lists can't exist, providing everything is sourced, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not only is this article a breach of WP:BLP, this article is also a breach of law in several countries, publishing lists of medical prognosis without consent can allow action be taken against wikipedia, seriously, these lists and anything else like this should be exterminated by admins ASAP. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban the creator from BLP articles, please. Serious BLP concern, and excessive over-categorization. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Giant Snowman 13:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. Number 5 7 13:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the split would be reasonable if we're going to have this kind of article in the first place, in order to keep the size manageable, the other concerns above are completely valid as to why we shouldn't have such lists to begin with. To use nom's example, if we were to maintain lists of individuals with impacted wisdom teeth, splitting it into articles for cross-country skiers, musicians, etc. would be reasonable to keep the size manageable, but we shouldn't have such lists to begin with. Smartyllama (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fitz, llama and ValarianB. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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