Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 29

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 Mass mortality event. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 midwinter animal mass death events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article deals with clearly unrelated events. Every source is from 2011 except for one from 1 January 2012. This was clearly a (social?) media-fostered non-event. Its notability has not held up. Srnec (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any notable and well sourced material to mass mortality event. See Aflockalypse Now and Recent shifts in the occurrence, cause, and magnitude of animal mass mortality events for context. This standalone article, however, does not meet WP:GNG. --mikeu ^talk 13:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per above. Instantiating this period as something special rests on shaky feet. But individual occurrences look as if they are worth mentioning in a coverage of the wider phenomenon. - Actually surprised that mass mortality event is so stubby, there's quite a bit of well-covered material that should go here... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Elmidae. François Robere (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest plants to humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I doubt that Gizmodo is an authoritative source for this list. Wikipedia should not regurgitate dubious press articles.

Gizmodo provides zero refs for the core assertion it makes in its list - that these are the deadliest plants. So are these the deadliest plants to humans, worldwide? Or was this just a way of the writer earning $50? Who knows.

Where is, for instance, Atropa belladonna, "one of the most toxic plants found in the Eastern Hemisphere"? Why are these ten listed in preference to any of the 466 listed at Category:Poisonous plants?

Clearly, I'm not arguing that these are not extremely poisonous plants. I am arguing that the basic premise of the list is flawed; that these are not the deadliest plants; and so their presentation as if they were, on the basis of a one-off popular press article, is (or should be) the antithesis of wikipedia.

What we do know is that we're seeking to be an authoritative encyclopedia, not a reprinter of any old crap found on the internet. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep active This Article should stay active. I created this article just like I created List of deadliest animals to humans because Humans deserve to know what we is need to keep up safe. We need this for survival of Humanity.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Not an article, no justification for use of a single source for these items or notability of topic as presented. List of poisonous plants is good already. Reywas92^Talk 23:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of poisonous plants, but failing that delete. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is a Britannica article "7 of the World’s Deadliest Plants" so based on that it could be argued that it is an encyclopedia topic, but only four of the Britannica plants are on this list, although the others could be added. But how to define "deadliest"? Where to draw the line between the deadliest and the merely deadly? The references to Gizmodo, Zidbits and MNN are not authoritative. I think the "List of deadliest plants to humans" is covered by List of poisonous plants (also, the article title should be "List of plants deadliest to humans") - Epinoia (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The comparison was made to the List of deadliest animals to humans article; while that article has it's own problems, at least it tries to quantify what it's talking about. Assuming that these are the most toxic, that doesn't necessarily make them the deadliest. Guettarda (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would think "deadliest" would mean the plant that kills the most humans. I know that will not satisfy some when stuff like peanuts are an the list though. (Please sign this comment--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete There are no metrics to define "deadliest," making this just a list of plants that happen to be deadly. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Non-encyclopedic, taken entirely from one source, built on a false premise, unnecessary fork of List of poisonous plants, etc. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not sure why this deserves an independent article.Rollidan (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Rorschma. This type of article subject goes against WP:NOT and the sources are nowhere enough to satisfy guidelines. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , This is not an article, WP:NOT, Alex-h (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless it is rapidly and drastically improved with proper sources to justify and quantify the claim's of 'deadliest' for each species and/or genus, this article should go quietly, as it's currently just a random selection of fairly toxic plant taxa. Although there are a number of books and sources available which talk about toxic plants, searching online I have not been unable to find any which give comparative figures for either toxicity or statistics for any given taxon causing death in humans. The author seems to think this page will somehow rescue humanity from itself by alerting them to the risks. God help us all if we rely on stuff like this to save us. (COI Declaration: As a three year old, I nearly died as a result of swallowing numerous Laburnum seeds in my garden.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We could have such a list, and there are measures and studies on relative toxicity on which it could be based, but Gizmodo isn't an RS on any of it. There's also a factor of length: no reason to have a separate list just for ten items, if they can be incorporated smoothly into the main list. Finally, for the OP's argument that "people deserve to know": Wikipedia isn't a plant classification guide, and even if it were - no guide worth its salt would confine itself to a "ten most..." list when items 11-20 are just as deadly. François Robere (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film. The article cites an announcement that, "Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na is being made under the banner of Kibria Films" by Zakir Hossain Raju, and a pair of press release regurgitations on the day of its release. After that there's almost nothing. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script name, found it mentioned very briefly a couple of times as Nijhum Rubina's debut film.[1][2] This does not add up to significant coverage in independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFILM - Epinoia (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A long defunct web-series that has questionable notability. The brief article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is seemingly the only item of note that talks about it, and it is very limited coverage and far from an actual review. I have been unable to find any other reliable sources from searches, though I admit that searches are a bit difficult due to the rather generic title of the show. Unless other people have more luck in finding more reliable sources that discuss or review the show in a substantial way, I don't see this passing the WP:GNG Rorshacma (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or any other entertainment criteria - Epinoia (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only two sources, both from the same local paper, both dead URLs. François Robere (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Coverage here seems awfully thin, brief mentions, non-reliable sources, primary sources, most links are actually dead or changed to something completely different. I poked around and didn't find anything better. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. InternetArchiveBot just rescued two dead sources in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I checked them out, one is confirmation that he was on a panel on a show on Lifetime, the other is an excerpt from his book, neither does much so far as notability goes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• An Ian Coburn has been booking comedians for Live Nation Entertainment In the 2010s, he worked as head of booking comedy tours for Live Nation Entertainment since at least 2008 and is not describes as the executive in charge of booking all European comedy acts for Live Nation (multiple hits in news archive searches). Anybody know if it's the same Ian Coburn?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A news archive search is getting quite a number of hits on Ian Coburn, a Chicago-based stand-up comedian. Most hits are reviews in American newspapers of his performances as a stand-up in the 1990s and very early 2000s, before newspapers shrank and died. Most shoe only the first paragraph. Added one from Washington State that was full view, but there is more out there form the 90s for an editor with better archive access.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sole reveiw I can find of his book is in the Chicago Tribune, solid source, except, local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ian Coburn and I want this page deleted. I am having an awfully tough time getting that to happen. Please delete. If you want to verify my identity, email me at (Redacted). I don't communicate on Wikipedia, so I don't have the knowledge to email users, etc. I need this page about me gone because it is out of date and creating a hardship with me generating business to, you know, feed my family, etc. Every time I make edits deleting info about myself, people keep undoing it. Please realize this simply continues to make this page a problem for me. I ask that it please be deleted. Thank you. (I was fine with updating it, only, but any time I or my company made an update, again, it was undone. This is a serious matter; I need the community to please realize this and not simply revert/undo changes and leave this page about me on Wikipedia. Thank you again.) Also, I don't write in html, so not sure how this will appear. Also, I am not the same person described below as booking comedy tours in Europe for Live Nation Entertainment and have no idea how to let E.ME. Gregory know this. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.*

• If Mr. Coburn's identity can be verified, I support his request. He may be sufficiently notable buy our standards to support an article, but, unlike, say, Henry Gee, who made similar request, Coburn is not so well known that we should feel obliged to ignore his wishes and keep the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already let him know how to verify his identity but it seems he's ignoring that advice because ...email is hard... or something? I also ran into the same issue when searching, lots of false positives. The issue here, aside from notability, is that Mr. Coburn has apprently moved on to a new career, looks like sales seminars or something, and as such there is no newer coverage of his more recent activities. He wants the article updated to reflect that, but he and others acting on his behalf have not proffered sources to support these updates, so they always get reverted. I've also tried to explain that but apparently it has fallen on deaf ears. I'm still inclined to delete in spite of all that rather than because of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the subject hasn't exactly been helpful in validating that he is who he claims he is, I'm inclined to believe him. Even without his preference, the article is borderline at best, and given that the subject very probably does want it deleted, I'm inclined to do so. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on grounds of notability. Plus, the man seems to have moved away from comedy since the page last major change,[3] and lacking willing editors I doubt we'll be seeing it getting updated to reflect this, making it both irrelevant and potentially BLP-violating. François Robere (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article seems inadequate, and the chances of creating an adequate article do not look good. Wikipedia should not be in the business of insisting that articles exist about supposedly notable people about whose details Wikipedia can find no reliable sources. MPS1992 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2019 (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. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not to be confused with UGI Corporation, a notable energy distributor in the US and Europe; UGI Group, a group of insurance companies in Jamaica; or the chemistry research group of Ivar Ugi.

The article cites the conglomerate's now defunct website, and has a few external links to routine business coverage of its subsidiaries. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest found no coverage for this UGI Group, and for its subsidiaries only a notice of liquidation for Wowtel in the UK. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Worldbruce (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Fails criteria #2 by 56 games (144 games played in AHL inc. playoffs, 200 minimum required) for notability. Per research of delete nominations of past members of All-NCAA All-Tournament team, subject does not meet #5 either. Tay87 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He falls short of meeting WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails to meet the GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Sandals1 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a case of a player that passed under the old WP:NHOCKEY standards but no longer does under the revised ones, as noted above he also fails WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The situation is somewhat similar to WP:CSD#A9: there is no claim of importance for this book of poetry and we can't redirect to the article on the author since that article (Javaid Anwar) was deleted once as A7, once at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javaid Anwar) once as G4, and ultimately salted. Pichpich (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a non-notable book with citation as amazon. Exploreandwrite (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NBOOK - Epinoia (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The main character of a seemingly completely non-notable series of comics and films. There are no sources being used in the article aside from IMDB and the issues of the comics themselves. Searching for sources came up with nothing substantial that could be used as references. I also tried to look into the comics' publisher "Rare Underground Comics", and found that this series is the only thing listed under their credits, which leads me to suspect that these books were self-published. As far as I can tell, this character/comic series does not come close to meeting the requirements of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Probably just a coincidence that the supposed author's name "Ekim Htiek" is just "Keith Mike" spelled backward, and that the low-budget DVD release credits director Keith Mackney and actor Mike Treveloni. Couldn't possibly be that a couple of people made up a story to promote a self-produced low-budget DVD. Or could it? Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - The utter implausibility of most of what is written in this article definitely makes me think that the vast majority of it is WP:MADEUP. But, as you said, the DVD does seem to have existed at one point, so I felt I couldn't just tag it as a hoax without an AFD discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Rorshacma I agree that AfD is the right choice, rather than G3 or A11. Bakazaka (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V. The DVD(s) existed at some point, and the college paper once had a story on these two low-budget filmmakers, but that's not enough to establish notability, and the rest is traceable only through user-created sites and copies of the Wikipedia article, meaning that it fails WP:V. A newspaper archive search came up empty as well. Bakazaka (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm unable to confirm any of the listed graphic novels exist. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG - no references to independent reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Luc Faubert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Played only four AHL games and mostly played in the ECHL, which does not grant notability unless preeminent honours are achieved. Tay87 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He falls short of meeting WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No significant coverage and 4 games in the AHL means he's not notable.Sandals1 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Mostly played in ECHL which does not grant notability unless preeminent honours are achieved. Tay87 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He falls short of meeting WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete 14 games in the AHL is a long way from meeting WP:NHOCKEY and nothing to show he meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. There is one article where he is mentioned that could be used to establish notability but it's borderline at best and everything else is routine sports coverage. Deadman137 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable 2013 film. The article cites one brief professional review, and a passing mention in regard to two cast members. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script name, found trivial mentions in lists of films showings, credit listings, and the like, but only one other piece of "critical analysis".[4] The second review consists of a plot summary, one-line reactions from three audience members, and the anonymous reviewer's opinion that "it will be fairly acceptable to the viewer" and "who would not like to see the picture if it is free?" (They didn't have to pay for their ticket.) Does not meet the letter or spirit of WP:NFILM. Worldbruce (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:NFILM - Epinoia (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morbid: A Love Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An indie film that does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM. There are no reliable sources being used as references for the article. The external links are largely defunct, and those that are still active are largely just reports on the press release for the film, with the same standard synopsis and cast list. I have only managed to find one actual review for this film, here, and I am not even sure if the site it is on counts as a reliable source. Regardless, it, alone, is not sufficient to establish notability. There was a former AFD for this film way back in 2008, which resulted in a keep, however in the 11 years since, there has been no real improvements to its sources, and it does not appear that there are any reliable sources out there to rectify this issue. Rorshacma (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:NFILM - Epinoia (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A non-notable film production technique. Google search reveals fewer than 1,000 relevant hits (an unrelated NASA quote about galaxies gooses the number) and few reliable sources. Article appears to have been created by a user with ties to the subject. Raymie (t • c) 18:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At best too soon. Currently this is clearly the inventor (or someone closely related) trying to play up the significance of their invention (if it is one). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MADEUP. I don't see the single reference going to an article about the subject - it just redirects to the home page. I don't see any independent sources. --mikeu ^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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't seem notable, self-sourced for its founders and it had a Kickstarter campaign -- doesn't make it notable. JesseRafe (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of which, seems to be a COI page made by one of its employees, given the user name of the page creator: https://blockclubchicago.org/author/margaret-tazioli/ JesseRafe (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete My search didn't find the coverage I think is needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails WP:GNG. No references cited. Germcrow (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:ORG - Epinoia (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable author. The edits by the article creator gives off the impression of paid editing. All the references are from associated sources. The only one I found from a reliable sources is this - [5] and it seems like a paid piece. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, article is not made under paid contributions! I know and understand the policy of paid contributions, as I have mentioned in the talk page, Even I didn't find any Reliable Sources on Arvind thats the reason I did not cited not even deccon chornical the one you mentioned above. if this article is paid contribution I would have added more personal information which I think I have not added. I recently purchased one of his book and curiosity got me search author and i found very less information, so I did some digging and thought to give a shot on article. I dont mind getting it deleted. but I would like to add my comment as KEEP Vixhere (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources (and with it, notability) that is made apparent by searching. The subject seems interesting, but unfortunately cannot have an encyclopedia article if very few or none of its sources are of any real quality. Geolodus (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• New Reference Articles Added added some new references, which may be Press released! as the information in articles are only related to his books, but through articles subject is notable and gains significant importance. please go through the articles before you make your comment. Vixhere (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases and from non notable publications. WP:NOTINHERITED is what you probably were looking to read. Jupitus Smart 04:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing any book reviews. the one usable source is a profile in a regional (metro) edition of The Hindu, and it's not enough. Looks like it WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I take my comments back! even now I also think after reading last comment, as no book reviews are there though it could be WP:TOOSOON and I didn't noticed that! though I vote for Delete.Vixhere (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:AUTHOR - most references are links to sales sources - Epinoia (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2019 (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. G4 Tone 19:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forum Sujana earlier. Was a case of paid editing by a syndicate. Probably resurrected by another a new user who might be a member of the same syndicate. Just another run of the mill mall. Jupitus Smart 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be run-of-the-mill. Most of the sources just appear to be press releases, rather than significant, independent coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've left a note for the previous deleting admin asking them to see whether this is eligible for speedy G4. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2019 (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article has previously been through an AFD process and did not survive (2008). It was later re-created in 2015, but has yet to meet notability criteria listed under WP:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources present in the article are largely WP:PRIMARY and there is no demonstration of significant coverage in third-party, secondary reliable sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 06:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 06:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ear achieved prominence as a critic of the many pro-Khmer Rouge Western academics and apologists for the Khmer Rouge. That the academics often did not deign to respond to him is perhaps indicative of the quality of his critique, the likely wish of academics to avoid highlighting their previous opinions, and probably a soupcon of snobbery that a mere undergraduate (as he was at the time) had the audacity to take on his betters. More recently, Ear has been a critic of the programs of the international community in Cambodia. Wikipedia has articles on many of the academic deniers and apologists for the KR. It seems only fair to keep an article about a critic - especially when said critic was right and they were wrong. Not to mention that his resume since his undergraduate years is impressive.Smallchief (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Smallchief. Also feel there needs to be a different standard to deal with articles concerning people whose birth countries lost the mass of their "reliable sources" when libraries, universities and newspapers were deliberately burned to erase culture. Jacqke (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Comment. The article requires some cleanup and better sourcing, and partially comes across as somewhat promotional (including the largely unsourced "honors and awards" section), but he appears to be sufficiently notable under GNG. --Tataral (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Thank you, Tataral for your comment in this discussion. Given that you think the subject of this biography passes WP:GNG, could you please produce the WP:THREE best sources that establish so, for the benefit of the closing administrator? (Since the other two comments above do not make policy-based "keep" arguments, I am not going to respond to them directly.) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel very strongly about keeping the article. When looking more closely at the sources, I realised that they weren't as good as I first thought, so I've decided to strike my weak keep !vote based on the current state of the article. However, a Google News search returned a number of results from sources such as Al Jazeera, Voice of America, The New York Times, so it's still possible that he could pass GNG provided that the sourcing was improved. [6]--Tataral (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of them are just him being quoted. He isn't the primary subject of the story. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBLP. At least three of the sources are the subject's own writing on other outlets, one excessively used source is from their own website. As for the argument made by Jacqke on "birth countries losing reliable sources", he was ten when he left the country, what could he have possibly done then that was reported in the media and then burned down? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the current page is weak but a quick search does seem to support the notion that the subject meets WP:GNG and is generally considered an expert in their field. See www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/khmer-rouge-cambodian-volleyball-federation-president-death-squads-a8884316.html www.economist.com/asia/2019/04/20/rapid-economic-growth-props-up-cambodias-strongman, www.asiatimes.com/2019/04/article/hun-sen-has-a-one-china-dilemma/,www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/crumbling-democracy:-sophal-ear-on-cambodian-pm-hun-sen/10044938, www.cfr.org/blog/qa-cambodia-sophal-ear,theaseanpost.com/article/why-cambodias-opposition-failed-0 Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page is about someone who has major academic credentials, citations, publications, and awards. He is apparently a major spokesman for an unpopular point of view, and that is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia should keep.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear. No questions. Notable. Collect (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Collect, given that you're an experienced user on AFD and DRV-related discussions, I believe you can make it easier for the closing admin by providing cogent reasons for your position. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um … The "notability" issue has been fully covered by others, and that, in and of itself, is sufficient. Talked at 2017 SEAAS Conference, TED participant, author (meets GNG for that as well), cited by Australian Broadcasting Company as an expert, member of local town council, cited by the "Independent" in the UK, BBC, and hordes of others. Cited by NYT in a number of articles, and writer of an op-ed in the NYT as well. Really want 50 cites from me as well? Cogent reason number one: The person is cited a massive number of times by recognized reliable sources. Should be more than enough. Collect (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, collect. Satisfying WP:AUTHOR, but failing to meet basic criteria would fall under "special case" in WP:NBLP and is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish notability, in the sense that they would qualify for a standalone article on themselves. To do so, we will need to show WP:THREE best sources. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the clear WP:Consensus rather disagrees with what you are certain of. See WP:KNOW. Collect (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is right. Ear has written three books and about 20 academic articles. His book "Aid Dependence in Cambodia" has 125 citations and his academic work as a whole has 1,114 citations. Academia, in my understanding, religiously counts citations as a measurement of significance.

More important, I believe is his work on the Khmer Rouge and its Western academic apologists. I would urge you to search "Sophal Ear Cambodia Chomsky" to see the impact his work attacking Khmer Rouge (KR) apologists has had. His scholarship on genocide by the KR in Cambodia has been compared (usually favorably) with that of Noam Chomsky by numerous people and publications. Somewhat similar to the way that 29 year-old congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has framed the debate about climate change, Ear framed the debate on a lesser, but still important, debate about the errors and prejudices of Western academics about the Khmer Rouge.

Compare, for example, the influence of Ear with Malcolm Caldwell, a British academic primarily notable for being a KR cheerleader and then becoming a murder victim of that same KR. Nobody, to my knowledge has proposed that Caldwell's wikipedia article be deleted because he is not notable. Ear is certainly far more important than Caldwell. (Full disclosure: i contributed to the Caldwell article and possibly (I don't recall) to the Ear article.) Smallchief (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Smallchief. So you're saying that subject qualifies WP:ACADEMIC criteria #1 and #7? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also notable as an opinion maker, a commentator. People with similar credentials not based totally on academia such as Gareth Porter and Nate Thayer have wikipedia articles in good standing. So, yes, Ear has academic credentials bolstered by his prominence as a commentator on Cambodia.Smallchief (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Notable, but The article requires some cleanup and reliable sources. -MA Javadi (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2019 (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 (in accordance with WP:RELIST, which provides that a "relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days"). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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}}.

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2019 (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/2019 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He gets pretty good news coverage on the internet, almost on a regular basis. The subject is not a politician, so WP:POLITICIAN not applies. 137.97.61.194 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the strings to his bow is clearly that of politician, so WP:POLITICIAN does apply, and Mohandas clearly does not pass it. That simply means that he should be judged according to the general notability guideline, which he may or may not pass, according to the coverage that he has received in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by "One of the strings to his bow is clearly that of politician" ? Making comments and public speeches in political subjects does not makes a man politician by default. Nor does he satisfy the definition of a politician by his occupation. WP:POLITICIAN does not apply.137.97.89.175 (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He is a leading media personality with two popular programs which is still running. He is also a leading public interest litigent. WP:POLITICIAN does not applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdvent (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject is fails GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : TG Mohandas is the head of intellectual wing in Kerala of the current ruling party of India, Bharatheeya Janatha Party. He has contributed heavily as an RTI activist and as a litigator, to protect the rights of Hindus and their places of worship, called temples in the state of Kerala. Hindus are being subjected to institutional harassment by the leftist government and he is also being harassed in social media and internet for fighting legally against this. This harassment is evident even in the above edits which is against the community standards of Wikipedia.

   1. Fight against mismanagement in temple administration[1] 
   2. Fight against mismanagement in temple[2]
   3. Fight against forceful acquisition of temple by Devaswom[3]
   4. Fight against unlawful activities.[4]
   5. Sabarimala Petition[5]

--Rsubodhlal (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being the head of a national parties state wing's intellectual wing doesn't make him notable. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence he played a major role in politics or election campaigning .Thus Delete.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not just passing mentions, either he, his public interest litigation or social comments are the subject. He is not a politician to play a major role in politics or election campaigning, no one has made such an argument here.137.97.89.175 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:He is a well known Hindu nationalist from Kerala 109.161.160.184 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being an Hindu nationalist is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (I found the following comment on the talk page, so copying here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep : He is a well known person in Kerala as well as India and intellectual leader in Bharatiya Janata Party. He has a major role in case against Travancore Devaswom Board in Supreme Court of India.^[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranrs143 (talk • contribs)

• I would like to make a plea to people to concentrate on whether Mohandes is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, per the general notability guideline. I recognise that some sources have been provided, but their impact gets lost in statements about what a wonderful Hindu nationalist he is. Such statements are only likely to make people look at this article with suspicion, because Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view, not a Hindu nationalist one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep :He is a well known person from Kerala^[1],and i hereby submitting some reliable source ^[2]

I think this article should be retained according to the General notability guidelines..!!

Padavalam Kuttan Pilla (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He is an important individual (I think). The news search brings up plenty of coverage. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}, and let's use WP:COMMONSENSE please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the high profile of the subject in question (thus satisfying WP:GNG); this includes large numbers of articles referencing him and his activism in both regional and national newspapers. --RaviC (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The above mentioned References is enough for his WP:GNG so I believe this article does meet notability criteria and should be kept Sanalkumarsidhu (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: TG Mohandas' page views are higher than that of State Police Chief Lokanath Behera, ministers Kadakampally Surendran, G. Sudhakaran, A. K. Balan, Rajya Sabha MP Elamaram Kareem, Binoy Viswam etc. This number of readers doesn't come here if he was a non-notable person. This is to show his public influence for those who don't know about TG Mohandas. 2405:204:D30F:4375:B1A4:2113:103D:2C72 (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page views isn't a valid reason to keep. So far, nobody has offered a policy-grounded rationale why the topic is notable and should be kept. Nobody has offered any sources that discuss the topic in depth. That's really all that matters here. This isn't a matter of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As well as the sources identified above he is Definitely meets WP:Notability -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  15:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree that this fails WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources are reliable and meets WP:Notability. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Close Admittedly, this is not a subject where I can claim to be an expert, but I think that I am smart enough to use Google News and find multiple articles from that region's media that go to some length in citing Mr. Mohandas's ongoing work [7]. I believe this article will benefit from a rewrite and improved sourcing - and that seems to be an issue with many articles that are recklessly thrown into these deletion debates. And, after more than two weeks online and multiple relisting, I think it is safe to say that it is time to move on and stop bickering over this article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable actress. Has supposedly played the lead role in a non notable production and a small role in a decent movie. No references on the said person from reliable sources to let this article stay Jupitus Smart 17:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a case of WP:TOOSOON with no prominent roles in notable productions (having a Wikipedia article), has upcoming projects so may well be notable in the future if she garners substantial coverage and then the article can be recreated, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER - Epinoia (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2019 (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 salt. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable actress, minor unnamed roles just like the last one and not a single source included is reliable - all wikis, user generated, wikipedia itself or completely unreliable (indiaglitz, etc...) half of the credits listed here aren't even on her imdb profile and even if they were, are irrelevant. So pretty much per the last AFd. Praxidicae (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A news search shows not a lot. For the record, I declined a WP:G4 nomination as the article was longer and used different sources to the version deleted at AfD round 1; hence I felt a new AfD was required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Gee, ya think? It's almost as if we've had this exact discussion before. Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Wikipedia was founded on bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.Praxidicae (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Horrible sources and repeated recreation are not a good mix. Trillfendi (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Must not Delete I have a lot of references regarding the article and its importance. Even if u delete it by now it will be recreated when she is even more famous because she has been acting in much films continuously. The roles she made aren't petty roles but they are the major supporting roles of the films. If u had watched the film u can understand it very easily because she had a film completely revolving around her, then the other characters she did travels throughout the film. In Tamil cinema, many films has unnamed characters which had almost equal importance that of the major role. She is just 19 by now, and has been signed for many films such as Appa 2 and the remakes of Appa, the malayalam version of it, then many more.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://getlink.pro/collection?term=yuvasri%20lakshmi%20interview--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yuvasri_Lakshmi. She has also acted in serials and programs in SUN TV. Many SUN TV stars have their articles for their supporting roles in serials and if u want to delete thi s article as she is a supporting child actress, then u must delete many articles of Tamil cinema stars.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that if an administrator salts the page as the salt template on it says, the page cannot and will not be able to be recreated, even if she did become more famous. Trillfendi (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small addendum: not be able to be recreated by a non-admin. Salting just means only an admin can recreate it. ...and sometimes they do, as is obvious from the drama currently unfolding at ANI/ARBCOM. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See she is an child artist, she has heights to touch. She didn't do any minor roles, actually all the roles she did was the major supporting roles. Tamil artists most of them were "none" at the time of their entry, for example we can take the leading actors of Tamil cine field most of them emerged from supporting roles. None of them can directly make the top role before acting supportive roles. But Yuvasri is already enough famous by these supportive roles.
  Then my next point is Thulasi_Nair, she isnt famous at all. She just acted 2 films at the age of same 16. None of the thing is positive to have a wiki article on her name. Her mother is an famous actress, maybe this plays a role for getting an article on her name. She was just nominated for awards but Yuvasri has won two awards. By how Yuvasri won positive reviews for her performances in Amma Kanakku, Appa and Kanchana 3, like that Thulasi Nair has also won positive reviews but just for a single movie. The whole article of Thulasi Nair speaks about that review of the film Kadal. If Yuvasri's article is deleted, then that article must be deleted, and many like these articles must be deleted.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'd like to nominate that article for deletion, see instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. This is a discussion about one article, not other articles in the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as we have to go through the motions. This is a repeatedly recreated article of a subject who has already been shown to be non-notable through a community consensus process. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete it. She isn't a non-notable artist. She is famous throughout our regions of Pondicherry and has a good support from Tamil Kollywood industry. I think none of them here belongs to any region of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. Most of them here are unaware of Kollywood. Her characters in Appa, Ammakanakku and a new ghost film Kanchana series were well known to audiences in our region.----Mannargudi (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ANYBIO/NACTOR fail. ∯WBG^converse 13:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think so none of them are tamil men to understand this, as said by the previous user. It should not be deleted. May be u all can get the idea from many Tamil users of Wikipedia. Until then u better eave this article remain.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A Better idea is better leave it with the consultant wikiprojects such as : Wikiproject India, Puducherry etc--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wiki tamil 100, dude, I can read Tamil. So take your spamming elsewhere. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki tamil 100: This is just a reminder that you as an individual get only one !vote in any AFD, regardless of the account name or IP address. Trying to add more than one in an attempt to sway the outcome will not help your case. Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki tamil 100 I'll put it in easier words for you to understand. This seems like an okay link from a reliable source - [[8]. We need more references from reliable sources, a list of some of which are provided at WP:ICTFFAQ. Please add more such references to the article - and they may be in any language - and we can consider salvaging it. Jupitus Smart 16:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A new news - Kanchana 3 director and actor Raghava Lawrence revealed that Yuvasri not only made the role of that child but also did the ghosty appearances (devil role) in the film in the background. She also did that role on behalf of Kanchana 3 cast in the show in Sun TV in Kanchana 3 Kondattam (Celebration). He also told that she has lots of talents and had recommended her to many film directors. Then he further added that on seeing Yuvasri, he came to the idea of opening an institute named Kanmani Institute (his mother name) to reveal the unknown talents from the state in Kollywood. For reference i can show only the youtube video of that celebration that Sun network will release shortly today or tmrw.^[1]--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank u Jupitus for that article. I have provided references from Indian express of tamil version (reliable), Dinamalar (reliable newspaper daily), Times of India and etc.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Lot had changed since the last nomination, so the result must vary from the last one.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete - she seems to have had only minor supporting roles - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR - Refund if she has significant roles in multiple notable films in the future -Epinoia (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- additional Comment - the impassioned pleas not to delete this article suggest that there is an element of promotion involved, which qualifies it for deletion under WP:SPIP - Epinoia (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2019 (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 Solidarity (United States). -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has no citations. Organization does not appear to have significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment seems like an obvious candidate to merge into the larger organization rather than delete.--TM 00:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Solidarity (United States). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Solidarity (United States). Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has not citations and only links to the organization’s website. It has no elected officials and no electoral history. Organization does not appear to have significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article created in 2006 by an SPA who created it and vanished. Has never had any non PRIMARY sources. Delete as apparant PROMO for a non-notable organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and Letters Committees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article primarily sources to the organization’s website and newspaper, and the few citations that don’t (7 and 8) aren’t actually about the party, but individual members. Organization does not appear to have significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've added some information from Alexander, the most useful independent source for Trotskyist groups, which has a couple of pages covering the group in some detail. It's tricky to identify which source could be a second non-trivial, independent source for notability, as so many hits are for material published by the group, but there are enough hits that I'm confident it's out there somewhere. Warofdreams talk 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The perspective of this organization is completely unique and it would be unwarranted to delete it. Dunayevskaya was admired by scholars such as Marcuse who is very famous and she was the central leader. I am sure the page could be improved but it should not be deleted. I am extremely poor at Wikipedia but I understand I am not to use hang on so I did not. But it would be uwarranted to delete Rmalhotr (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Warofdreams. Isingness (talk)
• Redirect to Raya Dunayevskaya#News and Letters Committees. Most of the article is just promo/directory for the group (e.g. mission statements, chapter listing, see WP:NOT) sourced to the group's own material. What's not promo/directory is already discussed in the Dunayevskaya article. Academic coverage of the group is actually coverage of Dunayevskaya that usually includes a sentence like "Raya Dunayevskaya founded this group". There is little to no coverage specifically of the article's subject in RS. So, redirect to the actually notable (under Wikipedia guidelines) entity as {{R to section}}. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I wish the nominator (who is also nominating many other small leftist groups) would do some research WP:BEFORE these nominations.--TM 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m nominating a bunch of stub articles for minor, irrelevant political parties of all types that haven’t been properly vetted. Many haven’t even been edited in years or ever. If parties don’t have significant, non-trivial coverage, they don’t meet the criteria for an article here, and I think virtually every party I’ve nominated fails that test. Toa Nidhiki05 03:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is on then nominator to do research BEFORE nominating. As has been shown in a number of these discussions, sources are easily available. That is why a number of them have been kept. AFD is not for improving Wikipedia. It is for deciding whether sources exist or not. It doesn't matter if the sources are on the page or not. They must simply exist.--TM 11:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Most of the articles I’ve nominated have been deleted or redirected.

2) The fact a few sources exist that say an organization exists does not establish significant, non-trivial coverage. A topic has to be addressed directly in detail that isn’t just trivial - which means that a source that simply says “this party exists” or “this party has ballot access” isn’t actually notable. In this case, all of the sources either fall into the “this party exists” category or actually mention the party only in the context of the founder, meaning it actually should go in the article about the founder, because it’s just duplicating information (and in this case serving as little more than a promotional piece exclusively using self-published sources(. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Toa Nidhiki05 12:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge ( to Raya Dunayevskaya#News and Letters Committees. Sourcing is woefully inadequate. And the assertion that "I'm confident (a 2nd source is) out there somewhere" does not suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC) per sources added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that all sources I can find describe this ORG as the personal project of Raya Dunayevskaya, the org's founder and head until her death. Her correspondence describes local branches, but if there are sources that tell us things like the org's size, number of member, or impact I am not seeing them. It appears to be just another of the endless tiny groups Trotskyites regularly splinter into. I have no clue what the issue was that caused this tiny faction to form in 1953, or what caused it to split up in 2008 (according to unsourced text on Dunayevskaya's page. the lack of such info is an indicator of this outfit's lack of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I added a couple of references and extended the text to note the editorial role of Charles Denby. I agree with Bakazak's comments about much of the current content tending to set out their current proposition rather than provide an encyclopaedic view, but I see this as a matter for improvement rather than redirecting to a section of the Raya Dunayevskaya article. While she was a prime mover in this group, others involved have included their observer at the 1961 Socialisme ou Barbarie conference [9]), Eugene Gogol (also see a brief discussion of the group's influence into Europe in Jon Beasley-Murray's review in Radical Philosophy 123, p41-42), Denby as I've mentioned, and in Glasgow Harry McShane, whose engagement with the group is described on pages 253-4 of his autobiography. Overall, I think there is enough to justify a distinct article. AllyD (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I genuinely appreciate your efforts, but having reviewed the sources you've linked, I don't see them as significant coverage of the group that is the subject of this article. They are passing mentions, or at most one or two sentences. The McShane autobiography is not an independent source. Nobody here disagrees that the group verifiably existed. But existing isn't enough to justify a Wikipedia article. That said, if you wanted to create an article on Eugene Gogol, those refs are a good place to start. Bakazaka (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Workers Organization (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no citations other than to the organization’s website and has no elected officials or electoral history. Toa Nidhiki05 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article has existed since 2004 and has never had any non PRIMARY sources. Delete as PROMO for the apparently non-notable Socialist Viewpoint magazine. (If anyone manages to source this page, feel free to ping me to reconsider,) but gBook searches for the mag [10] and the org [11] show nothing, while gNews search [12] shows hits on other orgs with the same name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rod Holt where it’s worth a mention, but not independently notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Mccapra, Could you expand on that suggestion? I see that according to the page, Holdt was one of the 6 founders of this org. But are there sources? Or a particular reason for the merge, aside from the fact that Holt has a page and the other 5 co-founders do not?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Without a lot of time and contextual knowledge it’s hard to research these small Trotskyist factions because they’re an alphabetti spaghetti of overlapping names with mergers, splits, etc. and it would take more bandwidth than I have to unravel one from another. I’m pretty sure from what I can find that this one isn’t independently notable but my view is that there is encyclopaedic value in having a fairly complete picture of Fourth International movements, and if we knock them all out for lack of mainstream coverage we’ll leave a significant hole. So yes, rather than lose it altogether I’d prefer to attach it to something we”re keeping, and given that Holt is notable and was a founder, that seemed an appropriate place for a mention. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable under WP:NGO, which requires that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." - this is a minor splinter group, even the webiste for their magazine, Socialist Viewpoint, says, "our numbers are insufficient for this crucial project of party building." - Epinoia (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marxist–Leninist Party, USA. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Marxist–Leninist Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no citations other than to the party’s website, no elected officials, and no electoral history. Does not seem to be notable. Toa Nidhiki05 15:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marxist–Leninist Party, USA. Did/does it exist? Yes. Is it independently notable according to Wikipedia guidelines? No. It's one of many recursively split factions of ML in the US (see, e.g., the "'Ultra-Left' Formations" section in this old Unite! article [13]). Redirect to Marxist–Leninist Party, USA, keeping the history in case someone wants to source content to secondary RS and expand that article. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marxist–Leninist Party, USAper User:Bakazaka.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marxist–Leninist Party, USA. Mccapra (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ensou Sentai Goseiger#Brajira. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brajira of the Messiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:FANCRUFT --woodensuperman 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Would it be better to just turn the page into a redirect to Tensou Sentai Goseiger?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tensou Sentai Goseiger#Brajira. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for TV Asahi's television pages. That's policy. Title is a useful search term, so redirect using {{R to section}} as an alternative to deletion that serves our readers. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - agree with above - Epinoia (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable club promoter. The 11 references in the article at the time of nomination are the same press release from different sources. Lacks coverage in reliable sources that would meet general notability. Whpq (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pending the finding an citing of coverage removed from the same press release cited nearly a dozen times in the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi I am sorry if I had make any mistake. I added some more references as you needed. And I will add more, just need a little more time. Can you be kind enough and remove the template from the page. I am doing the best to keep up with the Wikipedia policy just need your support. Please give me 3-5 days for adding more references if needed and I kindly request you to please also remove AFD template from the article. Thank:) (Ramniram (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

This discussion runs for 7 days. That is enough time for you to establish notability. At the end of the 7 days discussion period, an administrator will make a decision based on the discussion. I'll note that you have added 3 references. Of these, two do not have an actual article about Omar Ezzou, and the third is yet another copy of the same press release that was in the 11 original references. Press releases are worth nothing in establishing notability. Twelve times zero is still zero. What is needed is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do believe this guy exist but the only source I can find is a press released as discussed above by other editors. We do not generally accept press releases as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. However, I am also mindful of the fact that Google takes a hell of a lot of time to index African newspapers, and sometimes not at all, and we should therefore be slow to nominate or delete African related articles just because we can't find sources online. Further, reliable sources do not necessarily have to be available online. We do accept reliable independent sources available off-line and in any language, provided they cover the subject in detail. Therefore, if there are any Moroccan newspaper articles written about this guy (which are not yet available online) and written in Arabic or French then I will have no problem voting keep - provided that the creator state the name of the newspaper, page number, date of publication, some (not all) of the text from the source language (for copyright violation purposes) and a translation.Tamsier (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Everybody for supporting this article especially Tamsier In addition I have added more references to this article and will keep adding more. This reference is from the one of the popular website. Here is it's link https://thriveglobal.com/stories/omar-ezzou-the-celebrity-club-promoter/ I hope for the best. (Ramniram (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have any Moroccan newspaper articles about this guy which are not available online? If you have a minimum of three Moroccan newspaper articles about this guy (as long as you provide the details I've requested above) then I will have no problem voting keep. The problem I'm having is that, the sources you have cited are press releases which we do not accept as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Although MENAFN, Hope Tribune and Salem News are reliable sources, they categorised their article about this guy as "Press releases" if you read down the bottom, or copied word for word practically the same text (which either originated from their site or from others) and provided the contact details about this guy which reliable newspaper reporting on a notable person do not generally do, thus making it clear to me that their reporting is a press release even if they do not categorise it as such. Surely if this guy is the golden boy of Morocco, then Moroccan newspapers would have reported on him. As I have stated above, I am also aware of Google's issues when it comes to indexing African newspapers online. Therefore, if you can cite at least 3 Moroccan newspaper articles about this guy which are not yet available online - with the details requested, I would have no problem voting keep. I do not doubt for one minute that this guy exist. The problem we are having is significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The coverage must be independent of this guy, not press releases.Tamsier (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "new" source is now already gone, most probably because it was not an article but just spam. I saw it before it was removed and it was just a rehashed version of the press release that was badly rewritten by somebody with a poor command of the English language. See for yourself at this archived version. The "article" was written by somebody with a profile that states "I am a freelancer writer, blogger and seo expert."(emphasis added). A rehashed press release shows up on May 3 created by an "seo expert" and found by the article creator the same day? Nothing fishy going on here... - Whpq (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be a purely promotional article (WP:NOTPROMOTION) with content like, "His personality, his looks and his great ability to easily bring out tons of the party goers" - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable topic with a sole, unreliable, source lovkal (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fandom.com is a WP:USERGENERATED source. lovkal (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search yields only fan-created content. lovkal (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Article because it's need reliable sources.Forest90 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90, needing to be sourced isn't a valid reason for deletion, but in this case there is a lack of non-user generated sources in general. Nanophosis (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced fancruft, partially copied from a fanfiction.net page. Nanophosis (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG - lacks signficqant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of the hundreds of species in Ben 10, but a prominent one within the cartoon,Reagardless, it has no major focus on them outside the cartoon . I could recommend redirect but there is no page of list of species in Ben 10. Daiyusha (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2019 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I asked for guidance about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Excessive_length_of_article_Constituency_election_results_in_the_1929_United_Kingdom_general_election.

This article is overlong, and would ordinarily be recommended for splitting. However I think this article is not necessarily acceptable to keep. The summary election results are on the main general election articles, the constituency results have their own individual articles. This looks like an incomplete/abandoned attempt to create a series of summary articles. As such I think this, and any like it, should be deleted because it is collating and duplicating information already available. It is also noted that any corrections to individual constituency articles would not happen on this article, making this incomplete and inconsistent. doktorb _words^deeds 10:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problem; incomplete, unnecessary, too long:

Constituency election results in the 1923 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Constituency election results in the 1922 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Category:Results of United Kingdom general elections by parliamentary constituency lists links to pages for eight elections including this one and others also listed here. The list includes some of the more recent UK elections. There may be others linked to main UK general election pages. The practice of providing an all on one page presentation seems to have been replicated with other countries elections. The fact that not all UK elections currently have these pages should not be used as a reason to delete those that do. A good number of editors have contributed to this and other similar articles and it appears to have been updated in line with changes made elsewhere.The page has been viewed 159 times in the past 30 days which suggests it has value to readers. These are all good reasons to keep. Graemp (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION. If these articles are kept, what's the point of having individual constituency articles? doktorb _words^deeds 13:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Duplicates the information in the individual constituency articles and (e.g.) List of MPs elected in the 1929 United Kingdom general election. The latter serves the function of highlighting the winner in each constituency for the election in question, and readers can click through from there to the constituencies to get the full results. Also, these articles are far too large at 400-450kb. Number 57 21:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, an unnecessary duplication increasing the work involved in making corrections - or more likely introduce the probability of inconsistencies where (what should be) exactly the same tabular information is changed on the constituency pages. The articles are large and unwieldy and most likely used as a click-through to the constituency or biographical pages anyhow. MapReader (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per unnecessary but would not be opposed to article of a similar nature being created and presenting the information in a different way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's no different in content from many 20th century articles about local authority elections, which repeat the individual ward election information in one p[lace. And I would say General Elections are unarguably more notable. We're hardly awash with election articles prior to the internet age. It's hardly going to require much maintenance because it's a fixed event and the facts won't change. Sionk (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Sionk: I think this is a touch misleading or misunderstood. The local authority election articles would be oversized were they showing each and every result from across the country. They are displayed (in some cases; Lancashire County Council results most recently are summarised and I think I'll be doing the same for Preston this year) as the results for each council as separate articles, whilst these nominated pages show results for the entire country. The facts might not change unless, say, a typo fixed in Somewhere South UK Parliament constituency is not fixed here. doktorb _words^deeds 09:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me. Where we have local authority election pages with, say, 70 ward results we're not planning to delete them because they're too long, or because they repeat some stuff which is also available elsewhere in another format. It seems a tenuous reason to raise this General Election list article at AfD. Sionk (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the problem with article length, and potential for problems over inconsistency with constituency articles, could be fixed by creating a separate article just for each results table, and transcluding it to the articles on both the general election and the individual constituency. In that way any amendment or correction to the table would automatically show in both.Opera hat (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as stated above the reasons are tenuous and a more wide ranging discussion should take place before a final decision. It’s our responsibility as editors to update properly Macs15 (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge all results into a common table showing the result for each party per constituency (and Wikilink to the constituency article); this should resolve the article length issue. --RaviC (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support table solution. Not sure whether this is really delete or keep, but these results are better expressed in a table. Hopefully a table that is much better created than the tables for more recent elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand the nomination rationale. I can't see anything wrong with the article. If I was a user researching that election I would value having all the results in one place for me to consult, rather than only the overall UK result, or only each individual constituency. So what if the same information can be found elsewhere? And the article isn't 'too long', it's exactly the right length to cover every constituency in the country. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in principle. The results summaries on the general election articles do not answer questions like "which Conservative MP had the smallest majority? Which seats went uncontested by the Liberals? How many independent candidates kept their deposits?" That's what these more detailed results articles should be for. However, the information here is pretty useless in its current format and, as others have suggested, would be far better in the form of a combined, sortable table. Opera hat (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly relevant to have the results for the election in one place rather than spread across the constituency articles (which aren't the same for every election either). I would encourage consolidating the results into tables like at 1928 United States House of Representatives elections rather than as countless election boxes. Reywas92^Talk 07:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is very long and tricky to maintain, so ways to summarise the information would be good. But having more detail than the general election articles can offer, and collating it in a way which the constituency articles don't, has many uses. Warofdreams talk 11:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWeak delete. Full constituency results belong in the article of the constituency, not lumped into one election year article. This is supported by the fact only four general elections have been summarised in articles like this: Category:Results of United Kingdom general elections by parliamentary constituency. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep General election results are politically encyclopaedic if reliably reported upon. There's better ways to organise the information I feel, but there's no reason to delete these. SportingFlyer T·C 09:25, 3 May 2019 (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. There are many !votes going in all directions, but at least it is clear that there is no consensus to delete. The other alternatives (draftify, merge elsewhere) can be discussed on the article's talk page. Should no improvement of the article or a meaningful discussion about alternatives be forthcoming, then there is no prejudice to a renomination after a reasonable amount of time. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of edible invasive species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and arbitrary list of plants and animals. An invasive species is a species that is not native to a specific location. This article doesnt recognise that fundamental fact.Rathfelder (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this article can be improved, but I think it does not warrant deletion. In the absence of better judging criteria for lists (haven't been able to source one for botanical species) the list seems fairly useful in a general basis and is obviously not promoting anything. Since it's educational and can serve as an excellent point of research for those interested in the subject, I think it should stay. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too vague for an article. Invasive to which location? Edible as in tasty or non-dangerous? --Michig (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article not based on any sources, indeed it says it was "listified" from a category, which of course had been constructed piecemeal and at random. The narrow taxonomic focus - higher plants and familiar animals - says volumes about the WP:ORish method of selection of these species. This listicle is a disgrace to Wikipedia - we need to be getting rid of the whole idea of the uncited list ("oh, it's all right, it's got bluelinks") and basing lists (if any) on comprehensive, reliable sources. It's been policy for years now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like there is a lack of sources, we just need to add them. Eating Aliens: One Man's Adventures Hunting Invasive Animal Species -- GreenC 15:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When the linked article says it is invasive and edible and cites these facts, then having it on this list uncited is not a big problem to me. I remind you that policy does not require every sentence on a page to be cited, only certain classes of fact. WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. Items verified in their own article count as "obviously appropriate". SpinningSpark 21:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTVERIFY explicitly says: statements should be sourced where they appear. There is nothing obvious about anything on this list. Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Keep I'll have to agree with Spinningspark regarding the citations, but I would be open to merging this article with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species, this information should not be simply deleted. Garlicolive (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has potential for expansion, scope is limited enough to make a good article; could be referenced better though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything useful in the list it should be in Invasive species. It makes no sense as a separate article. Species which are seen as invasive in one context are obviously native in another.Rathfelder (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and reopen the previously deleted Category:Edible invasive species which is where this data was lifted from. Whilst I accept some of the points made regarding usefulness, I don't see why this needs an article to simply list what the category did. Perhaps if it were to be transitioned into an article, one could be made at Edible invasive species (itself currently a redirect) by lifting the section content it redirects to at Invasive_species#Invasivorism. This would then contain some more detail specific to the edible-nature of each listed item, rather than just a list. This list article to me serves no purpose, and I don't understand why it was lifted from a category in the first place. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands it is positively misleading. The only actual text states: It is illegal to propagate many of these species. It fails to notice that legality is jurisdictional. There is nothing illegal about the propagation of Brown trout where I live, for example, nor is there any suggestion in that article that it is illegal anywhere.Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: You need not reply to individual comments, particularly ones like my own which to a certain extent, takes on your points and concurs with your view on removal of the article. I suggested reopening the category as there would then not be any erroneous prose associated with it, though of course the matter of the listed species being "invasive" is still subjective. I think my proposal satisfies those who wish to retain some manner of list (as it was in the category), whilst allowing for some form of new article with an alternate structure and purpose, utilising existing prose elsewhere for the foundation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with your proposal. I didnt mean to suggest I wasnt.Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this list looks like it will require editors with quite a bit of knowledge of the subject (some editors may suggest original research) as there don't seem to be many books discussing this (heres one - Adventures in edible plant foraging). for example, there is no mention in the WP article of Acacia being invasive although they are, and, of course, their seeds are edible, another is the Oak (also not included in this list), edible (Acorn#Uses, here) and invasive (Quercus rubra#Invasion in Europe, Sawtooth Oak, English Oak) there are most probably numerous others. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or loosely redirect as to List of invasive species) see below: The problems with this article are that what is invasive in one place is non-invasive in another (so a bare list is insufficient), and so many of the species are edible (so this is likely to end up rather duplicative). Edible species can be marked (with or without conversion to tables) at individual lists -- see the linked ones at List of invasive species. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It passes WP:LISTN – see Scientific American for an interesting history of the concept. It just needs some focus on the cases where people have tried eating the invasive species as a way of combatting it. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article/list should be developed and researched. No reason to delete. WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCLEANUP It passes It passes WP:LISTN. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to avoid the issue of the article's scope being unclear (a species is invasive somewhere and non-invasive elsewhere), why not refocus the article to be about cases where it was prominently proposed to eat an invasive species as a way to deal with the invasion? ---a3nm (talk)d

• Comment: The article's lede was changed by Andrew D. to limit scope to cases where eating a species has been proposed or used as a population control measure. That's a better defined list, but scope would need to be defined to include or exclude use of invasive species as pet meat, fodder, etc., and if kept then such an article would need a rename to reflect the article's restricted scope. Even with reduced scope, the list is likely to include such exotics as cat, dog, cattle, pig, boar, deer, rabbit, hare, goat, horse, donkey, camel, rats, mice, squirrel, fox, possum... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very happy with that approach - but we would need evidence in respect of each species. Rathfelder (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Some invasion species were released on purpose to produce food, others just spread on their own. Any animal has edible meat, so should we include nutria? If a weed plant no one wanted is spreading about but it is technically edible, should it be listed? How about a list of just things that were released into the wild on purpose for food production and are now considered an undesirable invasive species by law makers? That'd make more sense. Dream Focus 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Joe Roman, creator of the list's idea. Content likely shouldn't be its own article given lack of sourcing, but Roman is clearly notable enough for his own article and this should be mentioned more in depth there. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is agreement that in its present form it is no good, but if someone is prepared to do some work on it I am happy to withdraw my proposal.Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination cannot be withdrawn once there is support for deletion. However, I definitely agree with your conclusion that it needs work regardless of the outcome (unless, of course, it is ultimately deleted). ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion struck -- shifting to Draftify so that those who want to pivot can:

• a. agree on the scope of what the article is to pivot to; and
• b. decide on a suitable name that properly reflects this changed scope; and
• c. adequately source it

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - based on WP:FRINGE advice about eating invasive species - doesn't meet WP:NOTESAL, the list has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"; or WP:SUSTAINED, neither the list nor the fringe advice nave "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time" - Epinoia (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2019 (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. The clear overwhelming consensus here is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apothecary to the Household (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Apothecary to the Household at Sandringham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apothecary to the Household at Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deputy Clerk of the Closet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gold Stick and Silver Stick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

High Constables and Guard of Honour of the Palace of Holyroodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Knight Marischal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Master Carver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Master of the Ceremonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Master of the Robes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Medical Household (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Medical Officer to The Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Personal Protection Officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Principal Painter in Ordinary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Purse Bearer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Physician to the Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Treasurers to British royal consorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Vice-Chamberlains to British royal consorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warden of the Swans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a collective nomination of brief stub articles in Category:Positions within the British Royal Household which are not notable (WP:GNG), and which are insufficiently verifiable (WP:V). The articles are all unsourced, or sourced only sporadically to primary sources, such as notices of the appointment of an individual officeholder. The situation is the same as that of the articles deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page of the Presence. Sandstein 09:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep A blatant failure of WP:BEFORE. Just about everything associated with the British royal family is notable so, if more sources are wanted, it's just a matter of looking for them and so one immediately finds substantial books about these topics. For example, here's a book about the Royal Apothecaries and here's a book covering all the various positions in the household. See also WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:BURDEN. Most of these stubs have been tagged as requiring sources for years. You're welcome to source them now. Sandstein 09:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BURDEN only applies to quotations and material which is so controversial that it might reasonably be challenged. It's not carte blanche to dump an entire category at AfD. The burden on nominators is spelt out in WP:BEFORE, listing sixteen separate steps. As the massive expansion of the nomination after its creation indicates that this due diligence has not been done, I now reckon that a speedy close is appropriate to spare us the likely WP:TRAINWRECK. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Some articles such as List of Treasurers to British royal consorts, Deputy Clerk of the Closet and Physician to the Queen are clearly valid list articles, explaining what the title means, and then listing those who held the title, most of their names blue linked to their own articles. This batch nomination is ridiculous. If any articles are simply stubs without chance of expanding, then turn those into redirects into a page listing all the royal titles and what they are. Dream Focus 10:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Andrew D. and Dream Focus. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Andrew D. and Mosaicberry. Mccapra (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was 'per Andrew D. and Dream Focus'.... Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Useful part of the encyclopedia. Sources do exist to upgrade these stubs. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Andrew D. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of positions of the Royal Household or something. Sure they can sourced but there's no reason they all need individual articles. Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Good grief: the AfD on Pages of the Presence was terribly researched by both "keep" and "delete" sides. A Google search immediately reveals that that subject was covered by the Office-Holders in Modern Britain series, a description of current duties from the Royal Household's blog, and print coverage in Allison & Riddell's "Royal Encyclopedia" (1991). In general, the Office-Holders in Modern Britain series and its extension at Robert Bucholz's database should provide a brief description and a list of office-holders for most positions in the Royal Household. Choess (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Personal Protection Officer is completely unsourced, and may be a generic term rather than the title of an office. I would not object to deleting that on its own merits, or lack thereof, but this bundled AfD is overbroad. Choess (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's easy to find sources for Personal Protection Officer by that title such as this, but the page probably ought to be merged with bodyguard. Deletion would be quite inappropriate per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]